- From: Philip Fennell <Philip.Fennell@m...>
- To: James Clark <jjc@j...>, Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 05:51:43 -0800
Unless I’ve missed something, there’s nothing here
that would prevent MicroXML from being embedded ‘in-line’ in XML
1.0 is there?
I do a fair bit of work with XForms and XProc, not to mention
XSLT, so the things that I’d see as important are:
1) Can I embed fragments of MicroXML in an xforms:instance, an
xproc:inline or an xsl:template?
2) Can I traverse the structure using XPath?
3) Would my XForms, XProc or XSLT processor need a specific
serialisation mode?
Beyond those questions, from what I’ve seen so far, I can
think of no reason not to use MicroXML as a light-weight data format but I’d
imagine I’ll still be using XML 1.0 + Namespaces for XForms, XProc and
XSLT. After all, it’s the data that’s more the problem than the XML
languages we process it with, right?
Regards
Philip
From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@j...]
Sent: 13 December, 2010 12:40 PM
To: Dave Pawson
Cc: xml-dev
Subject: Re: MicroXML
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Dave Pawson <davep@d...> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:29:14 +0700
> I can definitely see
advantages in this option. I would summarise it
> as:
>
> - no colons in element or attribute names,
> - except that attribute names can start with "xml:";
What do you lose if you omit this?
reserved xml: xxx ?
I think it's a basic requirement to be able to use the
built-in xml:lang, xml:id, xml:base attributes. Note that XML already
reserves element/attribute names starting with [Xx][Mm][Ll]. I would say it's
nice feature that these built-in attribute names look different from normal
attribute names. I see no awkwardness and no difficult for the learner.
Use full XML 1.0 (no longer micro?)
What you gain, simpler parse, no exceptions for the learner?
> - there's nothing to stop you having an attribute called
"xmlns", but
> MicroXML will treat it just like any other attribute
I.e. no exceptions, simplicity. A plus IMHO
>
> Big upside: guaranteed to be namespace well-formed; simpler.
>
> Big downside: some XML infosets cannot be expressed.
If you want that, go use XML 1.0
>
> I would be interested to know whether others also find this option
> preferable.
Lose the exception for me James.
Too little gain for more awkwardness.
--
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
_______________________________________________________________________
XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
|
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
Cart
