Re: Never mind the browser, let's do MicroXML
Rob Koberg wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Uche Ogbuji <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Dave Pawson <email@example.com> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:18:58 -0700 > Uche Ogbuji <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > I do want to put one thing to bed: All this Vendor Capitalist > > Apprentice robot parroting of "what's the business case? Huh? Huh?" > > Bad timing Uche. That was Liam, relating to SXML, what James Clark > called the new biggie. No one asked that wrt uxml. > > Actually, Dave, it's come up several times in these past few weeks of discussion, with regard to almost all the various proposals. But I'm not interested in its provenance, just as long as it's put to bed so we can get to the salient points. > > > How about this: Who is asking for a new a version of XML? (is it only people on this list?) Or is the goal to make it more relevant regardless if anyone is asking? As far as I'm concerned it's not about a "business" case as such; however, without relatively clear goals and aims as to what a proposed new language is intended to achieve, it would be impossible to objectively determine what features of it are desirable or not. "Be more simple than XML 1.0" really describes the how, not the why. -- Chris Burdess
[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