Re: maybe adding MicroXML to our charter [was: XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2010 December 20]

Grosso, Paul scripsit:

> Although you don't quite say it, that sounds like a request to augment
> our upcoming new charter--am I reading you correctly?

Yes.

> But at least at first, I would expect the discussion, use cases, and
> initial design would occur in the TF, and our WG should contribute to
> that effort (optionally as individuals, but also as a WG).  So I
> wouldn't expect the WG to do any work on something like MicroXML
> until after the TF has run its course.

Now that the TF has met for the first time, I gravely doubt that the TF
will end up designing anything that even vaguely resembles MicroXML.
Indeed, by the licking of my finger (and the pricking of my thumbs)
I have other grave doubts, but they are unfit for publication at present.

More to the point, the use cases for MicroXML probably aren't all that
related to HTML.  A mapping to HTML is sensible, as a mapping to JSON is
sensible, but the real use case is to provide a syntax more lightweight
than full XML but with XML's unmatched expressive power.

MicroXML: XML without quirks, to boldly go where no XML has gone before.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:
"Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"
El Auruns's reply:  "Many happy returns of the day!"

Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:34:24 UTC