RE: Subset Data Model

> On 14/08/2012 04:27, James Clark wrote:
> 
> > At the moment, we have
> >
> > 1. The syntax of MicroXML shall be a subset of XML 1.0
> > 2. MicroXML shall define a data model as well as a syntax
> >
> > The best I can think of at the moment is to change 2 to:
> >
> > 2. MicroXML shall specify a data model and a mapping from the syntax to
> > the data model, which shall be substantially consistent with XML 1.0
> >
> > This is purposefully a bit vague, but at least recognizes the issue of
> > compatibility at the data model level.
> >
> > James
> >

I think this is a good start as well.   To me uXML stands on 2 legs  XML Syntax compatibility and XML Data Model compatibility.  If you don't have both, then to my view then it makes no sense to strive for either.   

>From there, I think we could even achieve significant compatibility with XML 1.0 + Namespaces by avoiding colons in either attributes or element names except for the predeceased xml: ones.    I suggest that is very high value ... why ?

First I suggest we document a target audience.  So far it seems to be mainly those people for whom XML appears too complicated (and a niche of experts who want to write new tools and experiment).    That target audience (XML novices) ... I suggest it is asking too much of them to know what the difference is between tools that support XML 1.0 and tools that are namespace aware; the later I believe to be much more common say XSLT and XQuery and XPath and the various parsers built-in to common languages (yes I know there are non-namespace aware versions ... but a typical user has little choice or education in determining the difference and most modern versions that are at hand support namespaces).

By avoiding colons entirely (except xml:) then the uXML documents have a greater chance of being read in namespace aware processors and end up with the same meaning (a compatible data model).    This would vastly increase the list of tools that would *out of the box* work with uXML without unnecessary education of the user.
The other way to achieve this goal is a list (probably ever growing) of "Its allowed in the spec but 'Don't do that' it won't work in processor X (insert mumbo jumbo about spec A and subspec B minus spec C)" ... in which case what's the point ? We could just write that list now and not bother with uXML.

Explicitly disallowing the xmlns= attribute would go one step further in this goal ....
but perhaps that is an issue which might have much more objection.

-David

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
dlee@marklogic.com
Phone: +1 650-287-2531
Cell:  +1 812-630-7622
www.marklogic.com

This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are confidential. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail communication by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.

Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 11:43:17 UTC