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

Re: MicroXPath proposal

• From: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@maden.org>
• To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
• Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:48:28 -0500

On 01/13/2011 11:10 AM, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 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.

In fact, it occurs to me that a lot of the Micro*[1] proposals are
really application profiles, very similar to the purpose for which the
SGML Declaration was intended.

If we can enumerate a set of features and come up with a standard syntax
for expressing those features, then there could be a means of
negotiation in which one application says, “If you support these
features, you can handle my content,” and another application can make a
determination of whether it is adequate.

~Chris

[1] Not to be confused with Microstar.
-- 
Chris Maden, text nerd  <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
Axial tilt: the reason for the season.
GnuPG Fingerprint: C6E4 E2A9 C9F8 71AC 9724 CAA3 19F8 6677 0077 C319

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: MicroXPath proposal
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.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>
  • Re: MicroXPath proposal
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>