- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:02:41 -0400
- To: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Cc: Daniel Sullivan <dsullivan@danal.comcastbiz.net>, "public-microxml (public-microxml@w3.org)" <public-microxml@w3.org>
David Lee scripsit:
> But one use case I believe is intended is that users can use uXML because they dont want to deal with "The Whole Enchilada" of XML.
Yes.
> A full list of not only what syntax will crash XML tools but also
> what data model differences there are and how uXML documents would be
> (mis)read in XML processors. Without this list then uXML is a distinct
> language and should in no way be old as a subset of XML without big bold
> signs saying "DO NOT USE WITH XML PROCESSORS - BEWARE DRAGONS MAY BITE".
Technically, namespaces are not part of XML either. Conformant parsers can't
reject documents because of colon misuse.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
"Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context. A telegram
that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in
5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document
as any, even sans digital signature." --me
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 19:03:05 UTC