Re: Subset Data Model

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:39 PM, David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com> wrote:

> From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche@ogbuji.net]
>
> I think there hasn't really been any dispute that uXML should be a
> syntactical subset of XML
> ---------------------------------------
>
> I am disputing it right now.   If the agreement is that there is no
> statement whatsoever of the compatibility of the data models.  What is the
> argument *for* a compatibility  of syntax ?  What does it buy us ?  What is
> the reasons for or against ?
>

What are the arguments for strongly correlating syntax and data models with
specious correspondences (I use "specious" generously. For me such
correspondence does not even *appear* attractive).

The reason for syntactic compatibility is extremely simple: you can use the
large existing body of XML 1.0 processors to process MicroXML.  Notice very
carefully my use of "XML 1.0."



> Against:  It is confusing to the user to have something that 'looks like'
> XML and is 'from the XML Community' but 'is NOT  XML' and can only be used
> with a set of XML tools by nearly coincidence with no guarantee as to
> applicability.
>

XML is defined by a single spec: XML 1.0.  It is not defined by Infoset,
XPath, XSLT, XQuery, XDM, or anything else.  Therefore your basic premise,
that if FOO is not compatible with someone's pet data model, then FOO is
not XML, doesn't pass muster.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
http://wearekin.org
http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
http://twitter.com/uogbuji