Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
It's a key point, Michael. It is the tool's responsibility to limit the choices of applications of the markup. For the sake of user input simplicity if nothing else, it's better if the box strips strings over the user and most of the time, the db. What is the most compact representation of the possible content in an XML string and what is it if the possible content is very limited? In effect, in XML that is what the complexity curve of the system is: how many filters, applications, schemas, set definitions yadda does a string consume in the lifecycle of the it's use in markup vs a value pair? How much technology is needed to produce and consume XML? How much technology is needed to produce and consume JSON? If the latter is less, how much volume of currently maintained information can be refit into JSON? How much is better represented by XML? What is the difference in the size and complexity of the current browser/network systems if the tuning of that finds its sweet spot in the UI? Something to consider: how much technology is required if an editor is correct even if proprietary? Consider XTranormal, the cartoon editor making the rounds. It produces mp4s. That's all. The rest of the datatypes that are used to author that content are non-exportable. For the purpose of using that in an editing suite (the raw mp4), it's done. The other data (the carefully typed in text and gestural, behavioral, sound, scene, voice type, character are all closed data. It doesn't matter. As long as it can make the mp4, for a movie editing suite, that's enough for the system to be applied. For the scriptwriter? len -----Original Message----- From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@s...] Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 6:09 PM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: Towards XML 2.0 The editing tool that creates the comment can always escape any markup within the comment. Michael Kay Saxonica
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
