• To: "bryan" <bry@i...>,"'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: RE: mischief
• From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
• Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:35:37 +0200
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>,<rgrieselhuber@y...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <001901c2f2ac$3169cff0$2001a8c0@bryans>

> >Out of rough legibility, lots of tools, and a horribly mangled set of
> >philosophies, we're getting a huge selection of document vocabularies
> >created by people who obviously don't give a damn about markup.
>
> It's probably not nice, and it may in fact be injurious to one's health,
> but check the following documents:
>
> http://plant.blogger.com/api/sample_getTemplateResponse.xml
> http://static.userland.com/gems/scriptingNews/template.opml

An alternative format to the second example has just been proposed: OML -
Outline Markup Language. As far as I can tell the main motivation behind
this is make it validatable. The docs says that the process is open to
anyone and that the spec authors will attempt to get a consensus (O
Fortuna!). Input from people who do give a damn about markup would probably
be constructive ;-)

http://oml.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/specification

Cheers,
Danny.

----

http://dannyayers.com

• Prev by Date: RE: The Zen of xml-dev (was Re: Draft US Government policyon XML Namespaces)
• Next by Date: RE: The Zen of xml-dev (was Re: Draft US Gove rnment policyon XML Namespaces)
• Previous by thread: RE: mischief
• Next by thread: xml subsetting for protocols is un-blackwhite
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread