Hi! It is important to remember that XML was a disruption of SGML, not HTML.
I don't understand your list, below. RELAX NG compact syntax and N3 are special purpose formats, not markup languages. CSS is also a special purpose format. And JSON too. They have particular values in special domains. (And some have representations in XML as well, for those who want to use the same markup and transport system.) If you are interested in simplifications of XML, you might take a look at the microXML initiative. It is also struggling with being more accommodating of HTML (which was inspired by SGML too, not XML). <http://www.w3.org/community/microxml/> I still have questions about the problem your solutions are intended to solve [;<) - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: zhun guo [mailto:mike5...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 23:30 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Ask for advice:cloud office interoperability To avoid this deadly risk, the first design goal of XML should have been that existing valid HTML documents were well formed XML documents. The result might have been a more complex format and specification, but this risk to create a gap between XML and HTML communities would have been minimized. Another reason to explain this failure is that XML is about extensibility. This is both its main strength and weakness: extensibility comes at a price and XML is more complex than domain specific languages. Remove the need for extensibility and XML will always loose against DSLs, we’ve seen a number of examples in the past: - RELAX NG compact syntax - JSON - HTML - N3 - CSS - … Is it a time to refactor XML? Converge or convert?
