Re: Processing instructions

On 26 July 2012 13:28, David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Presumably the point of microxml is to make it easy for people not
>> > currently using xml to do so. If we only look for microxml uses where
>> > people commonly already use full xml, there is little point in a subset.
>> >
>> > David
>>
>> Which brings us back to David Lee's 'why MicroXML'?
>>
>> My envisaged use cases are for 'simple' xml creation, by hand.
>> Not presentation / application / server processing etc?
>>
>> regards
>>
>> --
>> Dave Pawson
>
>
> But cannot that be done without MicroXML ? Simply by sticking to a simpler set of XML?

That is one solution. I believe MicroXML could be a simpler alternative?


>
> So far, the only concrete "Why"s I have seen that convinces me to date is.
>
> 1) To allow construction of tool chains (parsers , schema etc) which are simpler and thus easier to make and possibly more preferment.

Which was the rationale for XML when put up against SGML (As David C
reminded me :-)


> 2) To allow simplification of some specifications which currently or in the future may refer to the full XML specification could be substituted to refer to MicroXML instead. (e.g. SOAP).

I'd be reluctant to put that as a driver David? Secondary
consideration perhaps...


>
> All the other use cases I have read on this list to date could be accomplished by a "How to write Simple XML"  cheat sheet.
>
> What am I missing ?

Not sure I can word this accurately.
Something like...
Oh, I've got to use XML.
Oh, that's not too bad, only xxx words  in the spec.
  ... later.
  Oh sh...ugar, another gotcha.
   Oh, another spec I've got to learn (xlink, namespaces .....)
  Why didn't they get it right first time!!

The corner cases and nasties and workarounds and ... make it plain
hard in todays dumbed down world?

XML for dummies isn't a solution IMHO.

regards





-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 12:36:11 UTC