W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-microxml@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Canonical MicroXML

From: Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:31:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAA0AChXekW5oAq1Vi=Wwg=kGSoruA5bbEhB0bq8PCDpyyfpdfg@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Cc: James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
Aside from that, I reckon canonicalisation and XML diffs are
so important as to warrant inclusion. Comparing microXML
documents will be such a commonly occurring requirement
for developers.
----
Stephen D Green



On 2 October 2012 13:26, Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why / in what sense "unique"? I think I know what is meant
> but it could be taken the wrong way. Clearly two documents
> can have identical canonical versions and therefore neither
> be 'unique'.
> ----
> Stephen D Green
>
>
>
> On 2 October 2012 13:05, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> The Canonical MicroXML for a document is the unique MicroXML document that
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 12:31:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 October 2012 12:31:56 GMT