• From: Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@g...>
• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:39:29 +0100

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Michael Kay <mike@s...> wrote:
> On 16/12/2010 21:24, Jirka Kosek wrote:
>>
>> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>>> You get more proprietary extensibility with XML (which lets
>>> enterprise vendors say they do XML to appear to use a standard while
>>> they lock the customer in on the vocabulary level). However, people
>>> really shouldn't be sending content using proprietary vocabularies on
>>> the Web.
>
> So, let's say I want an application that plays music and shows it being
> played, synchronized with an animation of the musical score.
>
> I would have said the most appropriate architecture for that is for the
> server to serve MusicXML, and for a client-side application to do both the
> aural rendition and the animated display.
>
> You're saying I "really shouldn't" be doing that. I don't understand why.
> How would you do it?

I would use the MusicXML markup in my document, and use a XSLT stylesheet
to convert these tags at runtime into horrible code in Javascript.
Then I would check whether the XML markup is used or not, and if it is used,
then I would advocate for its native implementation in browsers.

Typically, XSLTForms follows this philosophy.

• References:
  • MicroXML
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
  • Re: MicroXML
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
  • XML5: Re: MicroXML
    • From: rjelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
  • Re: XML5: Re: MicroXML
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
  • Re: XML5: Re: MicroXML
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • Re: XML5
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
  • Re: Re: XML5
    • From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@k...>
  • Re: Re: XML5
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>