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

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

David,

In my opinion, the value of a new standard could be in convergence with HTML.  If there was a single parser that could
deal with XML, HTML, and JSON in one application, would that not be more efficient?  Maybe I go too far there, but anyway better integration is a goal IMHO.

For example, I deal with maps.  I want to see maps in HTML in a declarative, RESTful manner.    In HTML proper, I don't think I stand much chance.  But in XML, or MicroXML, I can define a vocabulary and service model in my domain.  If HTML can somehow be persuaded to understand the semantics of the media types involved via REST (by reference), maybe now we have a means to extend the functionality in the browser.  I think a similar discussion could apply to many many domains. 3d models come to mind.  Semantic data of any sort really.  If we identify patterns that should be supported, we can craft MicroXML to support them.  HTML could then integrate derived vocabularies in an agreed-on, orderly fashion.

Like Len mentions, HTML is getting stuffed so full of semantics, its going to burst too.  So we need to find a way to help each other.

I remember trying to add parts of modular xhtml to my domain specific vocabulary to create a hypermedia language.  It turned out to be hard, as I recall.  

Maybe the goal should be to make a success of "XML" on the Web.  To do that, it will have to be simple.  Maybe we should think about NanoXML while we're at it.   

Peter
________________________________________
From: David Lee [dlee@calldei.com]
Sent: July 15, 2012 8:40 PM
To: liam@w3.org; Len Bullard
Cc: 'James Clark'; 'John Cowan'; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basic principles of ...

> A W3C community group would be a fine place to discuss requirements and
> use cases and get a draft hammered out. Or maybe I'm biased there :)
>
> Liam
>
> --



I agree !

But ... to test the water, while I am technically interested I step and ask myself  "Why MicroXML?"
Is there really such a dearth of full XML processors that MicroXML has value over simply coding to simpler XML by convention ?
Noone is making you use the full (and ugly?) breath of XML in your documents - and (IMHO) Unlike SGML, there is a *plethora* of full XML parsers and processors available,
yea even in the Browser.

So ... partially as devil's advocate, but also to question why put so much effort into a new standard if simply ad-hoc subsetting of the one we have would suffice
"Why not just use XML ?"  Or for that matter, JSON.  What is the value add of a *new* standard.


-David





_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php