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

Re: MicroXPath proposal

• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
• To: stephengreenubl@gmail.com
• Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:10:49 -0500

On 1/13/11 10:03 AM, Stephen Green wrote:
> Maybe this is a firm reason NOT to push a MicroXML and
> related Micro-culture since as soon as you prune a plant
> or a technology it tends to put all its resources into a
> smaller growth region and produce more vigorous new
> growth. Pruning XML like this is bound to give people
> more time and remove barriers to entry for them to think
> up new extensions. This might then introduce divergences
> with XML-proper, unless some special provision is made
> for either feeding extra resources into the main XML work
> so it can keep up with the extensions and for ensuring
> extensiosn can be easily fed into that main XML work from
> these MicroXML adopters.
>
> Or maybe that is exactly what XML/society needs.

It's all a pretty normal cycle.  I spent a few years giving talks that 
were largely modified reinventions of past SGML practice, pointing out 
that there were gaps in some of the pruning choices made.

Pruning is hard, but in most cases the plant survives.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: MicroXPath proposal
    • From: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@maden.org>

• References:
  • MicroXPath proposal
    • From: John Cowan <johnwcowan@gmail.com>
  • Re: MicroXPath proposal
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
  • Re: MicroXPath proposal
    • From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>