Re: [xml-dev] Reflecting on a decade of XML: Lesson Learned

[Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:45:09 -0800 (PST)

>   It would seem that attempts at a u-XML and at XML standards
> simplifications need clear statements of objectives in order to
> decide what features to include or exclude.  
>   

+1


> 
>   If, for u-XML, advantages for users is a primary objective,
> problems with u-XML include: 
> 
> ·         If an application is concerned with just text, many would
> use PDF, Microsoft Word or some other capability.  
> 
> ·         Secondly, most Web applications need to deal with data that
> exists in many forms and representations, of which text is a small
> subset.  
> 
> ·         Thirdly, most uses of the u-XML data would still require
> the complexities of other XML based technologies, in particular XHTML
> and probably XSLT.  Thus any objectives of simplicity for application
> developers are only partially achieved. 

First is clearly out of scope, unless the user wants multiple output
formats?
Not sure I see any problem with the second and uxml?
For the third stick with xml 1.0?



> 
> 
>   If, for u-XML, parsing simplicity is a primary objective, which
> seems to be mostly what it’s about, then defining a subset for
> special uses (e.g. limited devices, very large documents) might be
> useful, but it shouldn’t add complications.  However, I’m not sure
> that parsing simplicity is a major seller. 

I've not seen that as a stated objective? Have you Bill?



> 
>   If simplification of and capabilities for application
> development(which is what XML and related standards are actually used
> for) is a basic objective 

I don't think it is, though it may be a by-product? 



>   Simplification can occur basically in two ways – which are not
> incompatible. ·         Removing awkward features and complications –
> which diminishes capability

James uxml seems to do that?




-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk