- From: Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:28:13 +0100
- To: public-microxml@w3.org
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 07:29:00 UTC
On 5 September 2012 08:13, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > ... > Both parties should use XML in that case. It's not like XML tools are > hard to find if you need them. The idea of MicroXML is to simplify > things, which means that it's supported for the sender to send MicroXML > and the recipient to treat it as full XML, but not vice versa. > ... > OK, but it does make me wonder what should happen when a MicroXML parser tries to read an XML document that contains prefixes. Surely if we get that right, it will at least be able to parse it, even if it cannot resolve the prefix or distinguish a prefixed name from a non-prefixed name. (If so, that would satisfy my user story, wouldn't it?) --- Stephen D Green
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 07:29:00 UTC