W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-microxml@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Design goal regarding HTML5

From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:58:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPJCua0Gwbmkh=DmBsUiyWAJtNbo2GXGCHOrgT68anbmv6N19A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: public-microxml <public-microxml@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <
xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:

> Uche Ogbuji, Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:01:22 -0700:
> >> It is not up to *this* community group - or to the XML working group -
> >> to decide that it is not important whether a MicroXML document consumed
> >> as HTML, causes quirks mode rendering.
> >
> > I don't see why this is relevant.  We're designing a markup language
> here,
> > not a Web browser.
> Is MicroXML supposed to have its own MIME type?

That's a good question, and one we've discussed here on the group.  It
remains an open issue.  In my opinion MicroXML should just use
application/xml until such time as real world need for a unique media type
emerges, in which case those actual use-cases will help inform the decision
of what approach to take.

> > Historical note: It's true that thinking about HTML5 and JSON were the
> > initial triggers for work on MicroXML, but over time, and with much
> careful
> > discussion we worked out a difficult balance between these influences,
> and
> > that of XML 1.0, to arrive at what you see in the current community
> draft.
> Your presentation of MicroXML at ibm.com is then quite misleading. It
> shows MicroXML with @xmlns attributes[1] and DOCTYPE.[2]
> [1] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-microxml1/#list2
> [2] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-microxml1/#list3

Yes, and I'm sorry for any confusion.  Those articles predated the
formation of the current community group by several months, thus they well
predated the current draft, and the no-namespaces-whatsoever decision.  I
wrote the articles based on James's BNF and John's straw man spec, both
dating from 2011, as a way to bring some attention to the MicroXML.  It
seems to have worked, and in the resulting flurry of activity MicroXML has
changed, but the articles have not.  I've proposed formal updates to the
articles, but your comment makes me realize I should also ask the editors
to put up disclaimers that they represent an obsolete version of MicroXML.


Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 15:58:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 February 2013 15:58:56 GMT