- 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