Re: [xml-dev] "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basicprinciples

[John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>]

Liam R E Quin scripsit:

> If MicroXML is to go anywhere it probably needs to be rich enough for
> . XSLT to be expressed in it

You could do that, but why would you?  It would be a pain in the ass to
write XSLT without any element prefixes.

> . Web pages, yes with PHP, and, as John notes, HTML compatibility
> . be a close enough subset of XML and (for the data model) of XDM that
> existing software can process them. 

No reason why not, since it's a subset.

> . be formattable directly with CSS - but the CSS WG is open to new
> proposals, so this is not too onerous provided that the naming/namespace
> mechanism ends up not being too bizarre.

It's the same mechanism used with XML, just less flexible.

> . have a clear easily-understood relationship to JSON (documents vs
> data-binding), to XML, to Web services and the existing XML stack.

XML doesn't have a clear and easily understood relationship to JSON
in the general case.  I defined two mappings, one for round-tripping
MicroXML through JSON and the other for round-tripping JSON through
MicroXML, both lossless.

But I repeat, there's no real reason to use MicroXML as an XML replacement,
particularly not if you have a full XML stack anyway.

-- 
By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall     cowan@ccil.org
have neither the Ring nor me!  --Frodo          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan