• From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@g...>
• To: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:17:21 +0000

On 22 February 2011 10:34, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...> wrote:
...

> I'm more in the evolution not revolution camp - a simplified/subset of
> xml, with improved tool support seems much more appealing than some
> hybrid syntax.
>

I think this hybrid syntax comes as a *result* of having a
simplified XML subset. We should still keep the subset -
it is perhaps necessary as a precursor to readily include
XML in JSON in some way (e.g. namespaces might add
too much complexity to the latter).

There might be a need to look a bit later at which of the
possible subsets on the table best allows this hybrid.

----
Stephen D Green

• References:
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@g...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@g...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>