Re: [xml-dev] Re: XML5

[Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>]

On 16/12/2010 21:24, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> You get more proprietary extensibility with XML (which lets
>> enterprise vendors say they do XML to appear to use a standard while
>> they lock the customer in on the vocabulary level). However, people
>> really shouldn't be sending content using proprietary vocabularies on
>> the Web.

So, let's say I want an application that plays music and shows it being 
played, synchronized with an animation of the musical score.

I would have said the most appropriate architecture for that is for the 
server to serve MusicXML, and for a client-side application to do both 
the aural rendition and the animated display.

You're saying I "really shouldn't" be doing that. I don't understand 
why. How would you do it?

(Let's remember that MathML and SVG are only in the approved list of 
vocabularies because their advocates made a lot of noise about it for 
many years, and because people found ways to deliver content in these 
vocabularies before they got the seal of approval of the browser vendors.)

Michael Kay
Saxonica