Re: A really micro schema language

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:02 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

>
> What is useful is to allow an escape saying that Here There Be Dragons:
> everything between { and }, perhaps, is implementation-specific add-ons
> outside the simple syntax and model of a "really micro schema language".
>

I would look at this as an extensibility mechanism.  I don't think it
necessarily has to be completely implementation-dependent.

The basic RSSL (really simple schema language) would have some syntactic
mechanism to embed a boolean expression in an arbitrary language in
particular places and some (possibly extra-linguistic) mechanism for saying
what language is.  Then you could have a separate XPath2-binding for RSSL
which would specify how things work when that embedded language is XPath2.
I am a bit doubtful whether XPath2 is going to appeal to the kind of
audience I would like to attract to MicroXML.  However, I do think it would
be quite interesting to do a JavaScript binding.

What's crucial is that a basic RSSL implementation that doesn't handle eg
XPath2 or JavaScript can ignore these extensions.

James