|
Unless I’ve missed something, there’s nothing here
that would prevent MicroXML from being embedded ‘in-line’ in XML
1.0 is there? I do a fair bit of work with XForms and XProc, not to mention
XSLT, so the things that I’d see as important are: 1) Can I embed fragments of MicroXML in an xforms:instance, an
xproc:inline or an xsl:template? 2) Can I traverse the structure using XPath? 3) Would my XForms, XProc or XSLT processor need a specific
serialisation mode? Beyond those questions, from what I’ve seen so far, I can
think of no reason not to use MicroXML as a light-weight data format but I’d
imagine I’ll still be using XML 1.0 + Namespaces for XForms, XProc and
XSLT. After all, it’s the data that’s more the problem than the XML
languages we process it with, right? Regards Philip From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@jclark.com] On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk> wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:29:14 +0700 James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote: > I can definitely see
advantages in this option. I would summarise it What do you lose if you omit this? I think it's a basic requirement to be able to use the
built-in xml:lang, xml:id, xml:base attributes. Note that XML already
reserves element/attribute names starting with [Xx][Mm][Ll]. I would say it's
nice feature that these built-in attribute names look different from normal
attribute names. I see no awkwardness and no difficult for the learner. James
|