- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:25:37 -0400
- To: micro xml <public-microxml@w3.org>
- Cc: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
> This I understand. But there appears to be a big disconnect in the group ...
> Can I reprhase your statement that
> "MicroXML is a new markup language that is intended to be simpler then XML and will, if successful have its own ecology" ...
I don't think that is how uXML is being characterized. It's name makes evident that it aims to be a subset of XML.
>
> If true, I ask again
> Q: What is the rationale for having it a syntax subset of XML. What is the advantage?
As I see it, uXML is an attempt to redefine what is both necessary and sufficient in a markup language.
The advantage is defining the correct subset is that it will continue to work for with existing tool chains for a decade or more.
Moreover, it provide the correct base upon which to build a completely typed and hypertextual format.
We simply don't need DTDs or entities any longer.
>
> But my confusion is from Uche ... one advantage is that it works with "all tools that work with XML 1.0."
>
> This implies there is an assumption that *in practice* MicroXML will "work with" *all* tools that "work with" XML 1.0.
> Now we have to define "work with" which is what I am trying to pry out ...
> does "work with" mean "behave identically ?" If so ... that would seem to me the data models must be equivalent ... and if not then who are we fooling ?
>
> I am happy to drop the last bit ("all tools that work with XML 1.0") which nicely solves this problem. Then am left with
>
> Q2: What is the rationale for XML syntax compatibility ?
>
My existing XML 1.0 tools will be able to read uXML files. A future generation of uXML tools may hiccup on raw XML 1.0, especially if resorts to DTDs and entities.
>
>
> OK I really am going to stop for tonight ...
I don't see what's so hard to get about uXML.
Murray
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 22:26:18 UTC