RE: [xml-dev] Towards XML 2.0

["Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

It's a key point, Michael.   It is the tool's responsibility to limit the
choices of applications of the markup.  For the sake of user input
simplicity if nothing else, it's better if the box strips strings over the
user and most of the time, the db.

What is the most compact representation of the possible content in an XML
string and what is it if the possible content is very limited?  In effect,
in XML that is what the complexity curve of the system is:  how many
filters, applications, schemas, set definitions yadda does a string consume
in the lifecycle of the it's use in markup vs a value pair?

How much technology is needed to produce and consume XML?

How much technology is needed to produce and consume JSON?

If the latter is less, how much volume of currently maintained information
can be refit into JSON?  How much is better represented by XML?   What is
the difference in the size and complexity of the current browser/network
systems if the tuning of that finds its sweet spot in the UI?

Something to consider:  how much technology is required if an editor is
correct even if proprietary?   Consider XTranormal, the cartoon editor
making the rounds.   It produces mp4s.   That's all.  The rest of the
datatypes that are used to author that content are non-exportable.  For the
purpose of using that in an editing suite (the raw mp4), it's done.  The
other data (the carefully typed in text and gestural, behavioral, sound,
scene, voice type, character are all closed data.

It doesn't matter.  As long as it can make the mp4, for a movie editing
suite, that's enough for the system to be applied.  

For the scriptwriter?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 6:09 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Towards XML 2.0

The editing tool that creates the comment can always escape any markup
within the comment.

Michael Kay
Saxonica