What will success look like for MicroXML?

Dear all,

[I'm just about to go on holiday, so here are some miscellaneous 
thoughts that have been accumulating while reading this list]

 > I doubt a MicroXML parser would convert them.

This raises for me the question: when will people use MicroXML?

Considering developers - most programming languages "come with" (or have 
readily available) libraries implementing some portion of the XML stack. 
Faced with coping with some MicroXML I find it hard to imagine a typical 
developer doing anything other than reaching for those to-hand libraries 
rather than explicitly choosing a MicroXML solution.

Or are we expecting MicroXML to have more of an impact on people 
designing XML markup languages? They will adopt MicroXML and so design 
languages that don't uses DTD constructs or rely on processing 
instructions or comments, and so on. Well, aren't most markup languages 
designed like that these days anyway?

What will success look like for MicroXML? Being used by the markup 
cognoscenti on niche projects maybe? (Not that there's necessarily 
anything wrong with that).

 From an advocacy POV I’m not sure the name "MicroXML" gives the right 
message: it might imply suitability only for small documents/projects. 
It would be better to have a name that implied a benefit of speed or 
efficiency I think.

For standardization, I wonder if in the end the W3C will be happy to 
progress MicroXML to a Recommendation? Is there a risk it might be seen 
to conflict with XML or confuse the XML landscape?

- Alex.

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 16:48:03 UTC