- From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:28:50 -0700
- To: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- CC: "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
> > > > Presumably the point of microxml is to make it easy for people not > > currently using xml to do so. If we only look for microxml uses where > > people commonly already use full xml, there is little point in a subset. > > > > David > > Which brings us back to David Lee's 'why MicroXML'? > > My envisaged use cases are for 'simple' xml creation, by hand. > Not presentation / application / server processing etc? > > regards > > -- > Dave Pawson But cannot that be done without MicroXML ? Simply by sticking to a simpler set of XML? So far, the only concrete "Why"s I have seen that convinces me to date is. 1) To allow construction of tool chains (parsers , schema etc) which are simpler and thus easier to make and possibly more preferment. 2) To allow simplification of some specifications which currently or in the future may refer to the full XML specification could be substituted to refer to MicroXML instead. (e.g. SOAP). All the other use cases I have read on this list to date could be accomplished by a "How to write Simple XML" cheat sheet. What am I missing ?
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 12:29:22 UTC