On Wed Aug 15 17:40:22 2007, Ian Paterson wrote:
Greg Hudson wrote:
A generic XML editor isn't going to know much about the semantics
of the
document it is editing. It's not necessarily going to be a good
framework for a whiteboarding application, any more than emacs is
a good
foundation for Photoshop. They both edit files, but...
[...]
I would have thought that, a *very low level* synchronised XML
editing protocol suitable for SVG documents could be very similar
to, for example, one for XHTML documents.
1. What significant differences do people see between two such
*lowest* level protocols?
2. Could those differences be optional parts of a single low-level
protocol?
3. What specific real-world disadvantages do people see if we use a
single low level building-block protocol?
I have to say, my suspicion is that these kinds of questions would be
far easier to answer if we developed an SVG protocol and an XHTML
protocol, then looked for points of similarity. Trying to create an
abstract protocol out of nowhere is going to be tricky, and as Greg
suggested, quite possibly it'll go nowhere.
In particular, I'd welcome the Council reinstating the SVG XEP as an
experimental protocol, and encouraging people to consider the XHTML
case. I'd suggest attempting the latter by considering adaptations of
the SVG spec to handle XHTML instead, then consider how to re-unify
them, but even a wholly distinct effort would go a long way to
getting a unified XML realtime collaborative editing protocol done.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
