• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:50:26 +0000

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:25:11 +0700
James Clark <jjc@j...> wrote:

> The consensus position is not completely obvious, but this is my best
> shot, based on all the discussions and feedback, both here and on the
> list:
> 
> http://blog.jclark.com/2010/12/more-on-microxml.html
> 
> James

Which shows no sign (or need?) for a schema [language]?

I'm quite confused as to why someone would want to invent a new schema
language particularly for uxml?

If I can determine that my XML instance is uxml (well formed and ...
not containing stuff that is in XML, not in uxml - whatever that is
described as [1]) then why can't I use relax NG or XSD if I must, as
a schema? The only oddity is the optional James 'Keep html5 happy'
doctype. Apart from that I think I can use relax as my tool to
validate my uxml instance?

Am I wrong in this, or has this thread changed to 'lets invent
a new schema language'


[1] Let's call it uxml-valid for now. 






-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• References:
  • Status of MicroXML?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • Re: Status of MicroXML?
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>