- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:59:17 +0700
- To: liam@w3.org
- Cc: public-microxml@w3.org
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 09:22 +0700, James Clark wrote: >> Here's a very rough first attempt: >> >> 1. The syntax of MicroXML shall be a subset of XML 1.0 > > I.e. every well-formed MicroXML document shall be well-formed XML? Yes, according to at least one edition of XML 1.0. >> 7. MicroXML shall facilitiate the creation of documents that are >> simultaneously well-formed MicroXML and valid HTML5 > > Is it productive also to say that such documents created as per (7) > shall have similar or identical interpretations in XML, MicroXML and > HTML? It would be nice to say "identical", but I don't think we can quite manage that because of (at least) attribute value normalization. On the other hand, "similar" feels a bit weak. James
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 03:00:09 UTC