Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 14:07 -0700, Uche Ogbuji wrote: > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:42 AM, David Lee <dlee@c...> wrote: > I'd even argue for a minimum *without attributes* and without > mixed content, > no DTD subset, no namespaces, and only UTF8 support. > > A processor (parser/ language binding etc) for such a minimum > would be much > smaller, possibly "JavaScript" small/fast, > and on equal footing with JSON. > > It would still be "XML" (i.e. parseable by full parsers) but > vastly useful > on its own. > > I personally don't see the point in this. If I don't need mixed > content or attributes, I use JSON. Ha! Yes, precisely. The point is to make XML more useful, to leverage existing technologies in a scalable and robust way. The point is not to make something so obtusely different that it is no longer XML. I'm seeing a lot of chatter about "how do we make things simpler for app developers?" and very little about "how do we improve XML support to make XML more useful?" As we've wandered off the garden path into "end tags, no end tags," "no attributes!" and "profiles," I find myself honestly concerned this is going to turn into yet another round of pointless navel-gazing. I'd like to see some concrete proposals. And I'd like to hear from anybody who has ideas about how to get XML off the server and into the browser...anybody besides myself, that is. --->Ben
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
