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

[Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>]

On 4 July 2012 11:23, Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca> wrote:
> We should do the core set as proposed, because a) they *are* well known 
> (except for one which needs discussion) and b) it limits the growth of 
> the xml namespace because combinations can be defined by authors and 
> put in their own elements.

I would disagree.  From what I've read here XLink has to all intents and purposes failed.  A few committees may have used it because they have no alternative due to political reasons, but other than that the take up seems minimal.

The real lesson of the web is that simplicity beats comprehensiveness every time.  If it's simple, people will use it.  If it's too simple people will work around its limitations and enhance it.  Therefore (re-)start with the minimum and build up from experience.

My vote is for xml:href and xml:src and your done!

> ________________________________________
> From: Pete Cordell [petexmldev@codalogic.com]
> Sent: July 4, 2012 6:12 AM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Cc: David Lee
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basic principles of MicroXML"
>
> On 4 July 2012 10:31, Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com> wrote:
>> I do feel that there might be a need for a MIME-like Content-Disposition
>> that says whether the target is intended to be a separate entity or
>> inline, but we can add that when people shout for it.  (Although I would
>> probably implement this by doing something like xml:ihref for an
>> "inline href" rather than "xml:href='x' xml:disposition='inline'".)
>
> Actually, rather than xml:ihref, it should be called xml:src to align
> with HTML practice.

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Interface XML to C++ the easy way using XML C++
data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
for more info