[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:45:09 -0800 (PST) > It would seem that attempts at a u-XML and at XML standards > simplifications need clear statements of objectives in order to > decide what features to include or exclude. > +1 > > If, for u-XML, advantages for users is a primary objective, > problems with u-XML include: > > · If an application is concerned with just text, many would > use PDF, Microsoft Word or some other capability. > > · Secondly, most Web applications need to deal with data that > exists in many forms and representations, of which text is a small > subset. > > · Thirdly, most uses of the u-XML data would still require > the complexities of other XML based technologies, in particular XHTML > and probably XSLT. Thus any objectives of simplicity for application > developers are only partially achieved. First is clearly out of scope, unless the user wants multiple output formats? Not sure I see any problem with the second and uxml? For the third stick with xml 1.0? > > > If, for u-XML, parsing simplicity is a primary objective, which > seems to be mostly what itâs about, then defining a subset for > special uses (e.g. limited devices, very large documents) might be > useful, but it shouldnât add complications. However, Iâm not sure > that parsing simplicity is a major seller. I've not seen that as a stated objective? Have you Bill? > > If simplification of and capabilities for application > development(which is what XML and related standards are actually used > for) is a basic objective I don't think it is, though it may be a by-product? > Simplification can occur basically in two ways â which are not > incompatible. · Removing awkward features and complications â > which diminishes capability James uxml seems to do that? -- regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |

Cart



