Re: [xml-dev] Status of MicroXML?

[Jamie Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>]

Personal opinions here - and no relation to my namesake in Thailand.

Pete, what more is required?  Isn't it already written up?   As a true
subset, it requires nothing from the XML standard itself -- just a
definition.  Which James supplied as a complete grammar here:
http://blog.jclark.com/2010/12/microxml.html

As noted in the exchange between James & Philip, it solves a lot of
problems without requiring any perturbation of the standard itself:
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/201012/msg00513.html

Should be harmless, I'd think, to efforts to improve HTML, and to
those to improve the base XML spec, catalogued by Liam in other posts
on this list.

"MicroXML" simply is a conformant, "Just Say No" approach to some
complex stuff, which will fit a lot of use cases, granting that there
are others.  What I like best about it is that it obeys the DPH rule,
ambient in XML's early development, and increasingly overlooked, later
on.  DPH: towards the end of this blog entry:
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/07/21/DPH

Straight to the pub?

Regards  Jamie

~ James Bryce Clark
~ General Counsel, OASIS
~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com> wrote:
> How are we doing on MicroXML?  Discussion seems to have
> moved on to trying to fix HTML5!
> Do we have consensus that we want to do MicroXML?  * * *
> I think we should all head down to the pub for a
> celebratory drink while James writes it up!
>
> Pete Cordell
> Codalogic Ltd
> Interface XML to C++ the easy way using C++ XML
> data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
> Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
> for more info