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?
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Dave Pawson <email@example.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:29:14 +0700
James Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.