>
> >
> > Okay, I don't know where I would be without my CDATA :), but there is a
> > good lesson to learn from SML - keep the markup as clear and simple as
> > possible. Every time I see something like XMI or RDF I cringe, because it
> > is just too complex for what it is being used for.
Interesting - why is RDF considered to be to complex?
E.g. a namespace-mechanism ist necessary if multiple vocabularies (or
ontologies)
are used. I see now way arround them.
Thanks,
Stefan
>Right. (BTW, something like "Minimal XML" or "XML Lite" is probably a
>better term than SML, since it's used for so many other acronyms). The
>point is to start with the bare minimum of XML syntax, and add more only as
>really needed. As much as I detest CDATA sections in the abstract, they are
>very useful for embedded script (like XMetaL's macro files).
