Re: MicroXML design goals

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> James Clark scripsit:
>
> > I would want MicroXML documents to be able to include xml:lang
> > attributes, but personally I would prefer MicroXML not to include a
> > specification xml:lang.
>
> I originally thought so too, but I think it follows from the goal (which
> is not written down, but which both of us have assumed from the start)
> that the MicroXML spec be self-contained.  I have added this to the
> draft list of design goals.
>
> My editor's draft contains about a page and half worth of specification
> of xml:lang, xml:space, xml:id, and xml:base.  About a third of that is
> a relatively verbose XLink example, which could be replaced by a shorter
> one.
> I don't think that's an insurmountable cost.
>

I propose that the next iteration MicroXML draft cover just xml:lang and
xml:space.  I don't want to discard xml:id and xml:base, but I think these
belong in a separate layer, and even if they are added to the core we can
argue doing so in a later iteration.

For one thing, if we talk xml:base in the spec we would probably want to
add a baseuri property on the element model, and ditto for an id property
re xml:id.  It would be nice to avoid that.

Maybe the core data model should mention that additional specifications can
augment the core properties. Sure that could be implicit, but it's worth
signaling.


-- 
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