[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Plusch writes:
> ConciseXML is a new syntax. It is *not* the XML 1.0
> syntax, however, any XML 1.0 document is a valid
> ConciseXML document.
>
> According to the first definition of "compatibility" in
> Merriam-Webster:
> compatibility: capable of existing together in harmony
>
> I believe ConciseXML fits that definition.
Normal techie usage, then, would be to say that XML 1.0 is compatible
with ConciseXML, not that ConciseXML is compatible with XML 1.0.
Note, also, that the W3C holds a trademark on "XML" and can use it to
prevent any potentially misleading uses of the term. I'd recommend
finding a name without "XML" in it sooner, so that you're not forced
to change a lot more material later. Something like "ConciseML" would
probably be OK.
Finally, I don't really see the need -- somebody suggests this kind of
thing every few months, and then it just dies quietly. It's also
worth noting that SGML allowed extensive syntactic abbreviation, and
SGML failed; XML forbade it, and XML succeeded. That's not the only
reason that SGML failed, of course, but it was a contributing factor
(SGML tools were just too hard to write, and markup errors were often
too hard to locate and fix).
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, david@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/
|
