- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:14:44 -0400
- To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Cc: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
James Clark scripsit: > The ideal situation would be that MicroXML meets two requirements. > > 1. MicroXML can be used to represent any HTML5 DOM, and > 2. HTML5 validity for MicroXML documents can be specified at the > MicroXML data model level I don't agree with #2 at all; the model ought not to have complications added solely for the sake of the HTML5 validity case. Unless there is one and only one way to write a MicroXML document from a given model (which seems unlikely) there may need to be a way to specify output options, and "html" or "html5" may be among those. -- 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 Tuesday, 24 July 2012 04:15:07 UTC