Re: Why MicroXML ?

Hans Franke scripsit:

> Of course, since the XML declaration is basicly a PI, it would
> still be possible to have the XML declaration as very first PI. If
> a document creator adds comments (comment/PI/S) before the XML
> declaration, it's screwed up. Thus a document can be well formated
> MicroXML but no longer XML - wouldn't that break te goal to make a
> usable subset?

No, because the intention is not to allow XML declarations in MicroXML.
Since all MicroXML documents are UTF-8, there is no DTD, and the spec is
intended to be simple enough not to require versioning (I hope), there
is no need for an XML declaration.

If XML declarations were required, your argument would be cogent, but
they aren't.

> "For compatibility, an empty element whose name is br SHOULD be
> expressed with an empty-element tag".
>
> The first question that poped up in my head was 'What the heck does
> an element definition in XML?' XML does not define Elements nor does
> it handle elements of any kind. Thats something XML applications
> does. And, unless thers a generalized way to so so (*2), handling such
> quirky behaviour CAN NOT be part of an XML subset. It'll not only
> break XML compatibility, it also breaks the whole XML idea of defining
> a way to define data exchange struktures.

This makes no sense to me.  It says that MicroXML documents containing
empty br elements must be expressed using an empty-tag.  That
makes MicroXML a subset of XML: "<br></br>" is well-formed XML but
not well-formed MicroXML.  It also means that an XML writer won't
necessarily write correct MicroXML, but that's what you expect from a
subset.

> *2 - if we want to make a standard way to define elements that can be
> empty but do not have to carry the '/' we need to extend the syntax of
> DTD definitions (of course this may break XML parsers using the DTD
> for validation)

There's no question of not requiring the /.

> XML-ID, SOAP, HTML are XML _applications_ they are not XML nor part of
> it, they are data formats that USE the mechanisms described in XML as
> thir method of structuring element detection. They are no subset (as
> stated) but a superset (more than) of XML. They _use_ XML to format
> meaningful content(structure).

Yes, but they exclude certain parts of XML. For example, a SOAP document
can't have a DOCTYPE nor a PI either.

> So is the goal here to create some (extensible) application language
> or a simplified XML?

A simplified XML.

> If we are about to do a simplified XML _and_ want to keep it
> compatible, then there is, by logic, only one way to so so: The spec
> MUST be a subset of XML and only XML. Otherwise, if MicroXML is (in
> parts) a superset, a standard abiding XML Parser will reject MicroXML
> documents.

Indeed, but I am in no way proposing that.

-- 
We do, doodley do, doodley do, doodley do,        John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
What we must, muddily must, muddily must, muddily must; 
Muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, muddily do,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Until we bust, bodily bust, bodily bust, bodily bust.  --Bokonon

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 01:07:09 UTC