- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:53:43 +0100
- To: MicroXML <public-microxml@w3.org>
On 13 August 2012 16:59, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote: > On 13/08/2012 16:51, Dave Pawson wrote: >> >> To what extent is XML compatibility expected? Syntax only? Are there >> any boundaries to that expectation? > > > I would say having an xml syntax but with different meaning for that > syntax would be the worse possible outcome. JSON has a simpler data > model than XML and a different syntax so there is no confusion, but if > microxml has syntax such that it is guaranteed to be well formed xml but > that syntax has a different meaning then that is just building in confusion. > > If you push for compatibility at the level of syntax only you get things > like html parsing of <foo/> which is accepted syntax but it is a start > tag not an empty tag. I fail to see why that is useful (in general, or > in html) So how might this idea be added to the spec? I get the idea, and see the pitfalls, but how to phrase it? Is it related to the data model? I somehow think not. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 16:54:11 UTC