[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: ConciseXML rationale

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ConciseXML rationale
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:57:29 -0500
• In-reply-to: <016b01c2be6a$7e51dc20$6aa8a8c0@c...>

mplusch@c... (Mike Plusch) writes:
>Instead, we decided to "fix" XML with ConciseXML.
>We knew the XML purists would hate us at first, but
>that was worth the risk because the majority of the
>world just wants to get their job done.

Drop the "X" and explain what you mean by "compatible", and I think
you'll get the best of both worlds.

XML purists won't be angry, and you'll have far fewer distractions in
presenting this to "the majority of the world."

At this point, I suspect "ML" may be a stronger acronym anyway, as "XML"
carries a few tons of baggage.

"Fixing" XML is pretty much only a good idea if you feel like starting a
fight or eight.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

• References:
  • ConciseXML rationale
    • From: "Mike Plusch" <mplusch@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Next by Date: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Previous by thread: ConciseXML rationale
• Next by thread: Re: ConciseXML rationale
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread