- From: Alex Brown <adjb@adjb.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:47:44 +0100
- CC: "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
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