[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Recommendations for PubSubj Documentation - version0.2
Murray Altheim wrote: [...] > I'm still unconvinced that a new syntax is necessary, or even a good > idea. I don't want to stand in the way of progress if I'm the only > person who feels this way, but I continue to think that recommending > metadata additions to XHTML (but still within XHTML's syntax) is the > kind of thing that (a) doesn't require new syntax, its development, > promulgation, and acceptance, (b) doesn't require new tools, documentation, > or education, and (c) is simple and already exists. > > Last year I published a recommendation on adding metadata (Dublin Core, > in fact, though any would be possible) to XHTML documents. I think some > parts of this spec could be useful for the PubSubj TC's needs: > > http://www.doctypes.org/meta/NOTE-xhtml-augmeta.html > > I just think we're going to get an uphill battle trying to get anyone > to use a new syntax when we have at least three (XTM, XHTML and RDF) > that could serve in this capacity. Not to beat this about the head and shoulders, but I forgot to add my main point: what benefit is there in creating a new syntax for PSI documentation if the main viewers of such documentation require specialized tools? Ie., if a web browser can't view the documentation, what good is it as documentation for essentially web-based technologies whose viewers are generally a web audience, and isn't it actually counterproductive to create a new markup language for documents that few except experts have the editing tools to create? I've not yet heard the arguments in favour of it. Murray ........................................................................... Murray Altheim <mailto:murray.altheim@sun.com> XML Technology Center, Java and XML Software Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025 Corporations do not have human rights, despite the altogether too-human opinions of the US Supreme Court.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC