RE: [xml-dev] "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basicprinciples

["Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>]

Hi Andrew,

> > I wonder if it would be too late to add reliable hypermedia 
> affordances to MicroXML?
> 
> There is no need for it, just as there is no need for inbuilt 
> linking in full fat xml.

Oh yes there is.  But don't take my word for it - as Jim Webber, Savas Parastatidis and Ian Robinson state in their book [1]: 

"Although XML is easy to use as a data interchange format, and despite its near ubiquity, it is utterly oblivious to the Web."

which they follow up with a nice example.

[1] http://restinpractice.com, p97

Mike Amundsen wrote in his book [2]: "One of the drawbacks of XML is that the original media type contains no native HFactors:
no predefined links, forms, etc."

[2] http://www.amazon.ca/Building-Hypermedia-APIs-HTML5-Node/dp/1449306578 p21

 
> The single purpose of a simplified xml was to make it easier 
> for non-xml developers to create and process.

You mean web developers, don't you?

I believe MicroXML arose in concept out of this post by James Clark:

http://blog.jclark.com/2010/11/xml-vs-web_24.html

From that: "There's a bigger point that I want to make here, and it's about the relationship between XML and the Web. When we started out doing XML, a big part of the vision was about bridging the gap from the SGML world (complex, sophisticated, partly academic, partly big enterprise) to the Web... all the stuff that's been piled on top of XML, together with the huge advances in the Web world in HTML5, JSON and JavaScript, have combined to make XML be perceived as an overly complex, enterprisey technology, which doesn't bring any value to the average Web developer."  This relates to goal #1 of XML and more recently MicroXML.

Less academically, and more practically, when your browser receives a message which is unambiguously application/xml ie is transmitted with the http header Content-Type: application/xml, and there are @href values in it, regardless of namespace, they are not underlined.  Why not?

Sincerely,
Peter