• From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@N...>
• To: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:36:59 +0000

> It's been discussed quite frequently on the various lists, 
> and the usual conclusion is that links are best modelled in 
> the xml using whatever is suitable to the domain, and the 
> actual linking functionality is provided in the view layer.
> 
> >> The single purpose of a simplified xml was to make it easier for 
> >> non-xml developers to create and process.
> >
> > You mean web developers, don't you?
> >
> > I believe MicroXML arose in concept out of this post by James Clark:
> 
> ...which may or may not have arisen from this thread:
> 
> http://markmail.org/message/kxrg3tifg4k4fyj6

Well, that is really awesome Andrew.  And I really like the namespace idea,
especially.  Does MicroXML implement that the way you envisioned?

But, my point remains, Web browsers are the most common XML processing
application on earth, and they can't recognize the hypermedia affordances we
put in our representations.  Why not?

Cheers,

Peter

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basicprinciples of MicroXML"
    • From: David Lee <dlee@c...>

• References:
  • RE: "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basicprinciples of MicroXML"
    • From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@N...>
  • Re: "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basicprinciples of MicroXML"
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • RE: "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basicprinciples of MicroXML"
    • From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@N...>
  • Re: "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basicprinciples of MicroXML"
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>