Re: [xml-dev] MicroXML

[Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:35:10 -0500
Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@talsever.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:01:11 +0700, James Clark wrote:
> > I wrote a post describing a fairly minimal subset of XML:
> > 
> >    http://blog.jclark.com/2010/12/microxml.html
> 
> Nice.  I like the way that it copes with namespaces; I think it may 
> improve upon Michael Kay's suggestion, even.
> 
> I have a problem with it.
> 
> How do I tell whether it's safe to use my uXML parser instead of my 
> (heavier) XML 1.0 + Namespace in XML + XML:Base + XML:ID + whatever 
> parser?
> 


> That leaves: attribute on the root--or some other--element.  


I.e. it leaves it down to the user? I believe the goal
is that any decent XML parser would flag your uxml (like it)
document as well formed... 
   Wouldn't check your 'uns' well-formedness though.







> This suggests (to me) that the likeliest hack will be to create
> custom semantically important comments, possibly paired comments if
> uXML is widely deployed embedded (start and stop), although
> well-formedness might make a single indicator sufficient.
> 
> Personally, I'd rather have a PI.

I'd prefer the root attribute? But basically down to the parser
writer? 

If a PI, what do you decide when you meet it half way down
the document? POXML up until then, now switch parsers?
Messy?


> 
> In other issues, I think that there may be an over-emphasis on HTML5 
> compatibility, even at the expense of XML compatibility.
> 
> If this were to be of interest, I'd expect to see it "grow up" with 
> additional layers, at some point. 

Layers = complexity? I'd hope not. 





-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk