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

RE: API compatibility

From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 04:40:57 -0700
To: "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>
CC: "public-microxml (public-microxml@w3.org)" <public-microxml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EB42045A1F00224E93B82E949EC6675E16B0EC8FD2@EXCHG-BE.marklogic.com>
> Concrete:
> Say for example I wanted to use JAXB or say Saxon XSLT ... but use my own MicroXML parser ...
> what would that mean ?

Since µXML doesn't support flamespaces (as i used to call them), and
XSLT requires them, you would need an adaptor or bridge or connector.

E.g. I can imagine a sax adapter that lied and put XSLT elements into
the XSLT namespace.

-------------

Ah ! I wasnt thinking of the XSLT (code) document being in MicroXML format, I know that wouldn't work out of box, but rather the input files the XSLT processes ...
For a SAX adaptor I would imagine this mapping

uXML   ->  XML  
name   -> localname
""        -> namespace
""         -> prefix
attribute value -> normalized attribute value
char data -> char data
...

This would allow (ideally)  XML XSLT files in a XML XSLT processor to process MicroXML documents.
And by tweaking the output options just right (like omit the XML declaration) 
Resulting in an MicroXML document.

Which raises the opposite question.   Can a XML processor produce a MicroXML document ?
I believe with the right serialization options it could.
It might be nice to consider what it would take to augment the serialization options for tools
to include "microxml" to make this transition easier.

-David

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
dlee@marklogic.com
Phone: +1 812-482-5224
Cell:  +1 812-630-7622
www.marklogic.com
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 11:41:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2012 11:41:26 GMT