Re: Re: XML5
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? (Let's remember that MathML and SVG are only in the approved list of vocabularies because their advocates made a lot of noise about it for many years, and because people found ways to deliver content in these vocabularies before they got the seal of approval of the browser vendors.) Michael Kay Saxonica
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format