OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] The Granularity of Markup (Re: [xml-dev] InkML)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

ricko@allette.com.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>Let us imagine four constraints:
> 1) InkML must be text
> 2) InkML must be terse (faster parsing, less space)
> 3) InkML must be embeddable as part of an XML document
> 4) InkML objects must be annotatable and extendible using XML (or 
>XML-ish) mechanisms

Sorry, Rick, but while these constraints may exist in the committee's
minds, they never bother to justify their concrete decisions on such
grounds.  They appear nowhere in the spec [1] or in the requirements
[2].  Section 5 of the requirements regarding PDAs is the closest I can
find, but such justifications hardly kept Tiny SVG from using markup for
the bulk of its contents.

On #4, perhaps it would have made sense to define the trace language as
a separate language and the rest of InkML as a wrapper, but that isn't
what the committee chose to do.  The traces themselves are not in fact
extensible, only annotable.

I heartily encourage developers to use lexical approaches which aren't
XML inside of XML contexts - it helps with human-accessibility, among
other factors.  At the same time, once you get beyond a certain ratio of
markup to encoded content, it makes a mockery of using XML in the first
place - especially when the encoded content is this opaque.

[1] - http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-InkML-20030806/
[2] - http://www.w3.org/TR/inkreqs/


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS