OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Status of MicroXML?

Thanks, James for the clarification.

Then as I argued earlier why can't XML users (current and "future --
who might need something like MicroXML") use a subset of the existing
XML 1.0 or 1.1 standard (which as I said if user's want they could use
only the well-formed layer, optional validation and/or processing
instructions and so on)?

I felt that developing something like XML 2.0/3.0 (which are discussed
in other threads by Liam and Elliotte I believe) to add and fix things
from XML 1.0/1.1, instead of inventing language and name like MicroXML
is probably a good idea. Perhaps the future XML 2.0 standard (if..)
can take ideas from MicroXML (i.e get benefits from it's use-cases),
and then users can use a subset of future XML 2.0 standard (to my
opinion XML 2.0 needs to be equivalent or larger in scope than the XML
1.0/1.1 standard).

Perhaps the idea of MicroXML looks like a language profile concept,
which to my opinion is fine but then IMHO we should mention that
MicroXML is a profile of XML 1.0, and not that it is an altogether new

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:15 AM, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote:
> Huh? MicroXML is a subset of XML 1.0.
> James

Mukul Gandhi

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS