Re: Subset Data Model

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> David Lee scripsit:
>
> > So: If the XML and uXML data models are not intended to be subsets
> > or interchangeable ... where do you perceive the value of the syntax
> > being a subset ?  Is this purely a familiarity issue (for example xmlsh
> > syntax is largely compatible with bash - for familiarity reasons only)
>
> I already pointed this out upthread: by keeping the syntax a subset,
> you don't need a MicroXML parser that can deliver the XML data model;
> any XML parser will do the job.
>

Exactly right. I must say the last thing I'd want is any historical
constraint on the MicroXML data model. Not for XDM. Not for the XPath
2.x/3.x DMs from which it derived. Not for the Infoset from which they
derived.  Of course my position is probably the effect of my long-held bias
with regard to syntaxes and data models in XML.

I think there hasn't really been any dispute that uXML should be a
syntactical subset of XML.  Maybe we should wrap up on drafting the
super-simple, largely sui generis data model towards which early
discussions have been hinting. That will give us an actual target against
which folks can assess the likelihood of practical problems, and of course
make the case that any such practical problems are worth the likely huge
cost of alignment with XDM.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
http://wearekin.org
http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
http://twitter.com/uogbuji