• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 13:20:13 +0000

On 08/12/2010 12:59, Dave Pawson wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:19:58 -0000
> "Pete Cordell"<petexmldev@c...>  wrote:
>
>>
>> It's at:
>>
>> http://codalogic.com/xmllite/xmllite.html
>
>
> Can we get this naming issue out of the way, to reduce confusion?
> For my 2 cents worth XML 2.0 is a non-starter, due respect to W3C.
>
> Simple XML,
> XMLLite
>   What else?

I don't think you can pick a name until you have decided what it is you 
are naming.

Several of the proposals in the xmllite proposal quoted above are just 
suggesting a profile of xml (don't use dtd's, dont use CDATA, ...) and 
for that "Simple XML" or "XMLLight" is probably as good as anything.
However several other parts of the proposal involve making previously 
non well formed constructs well formed (</>) or changing the 
interpretation of existing constructs (&nbsp; foo=" a  b  c") I think 
that for any new language that has such changes using a name that 
involves the letter sequence XML might be problematic.

David


________________________________________________________________________
The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 
________________________________________________________________________

• Follow-Ups:
  • Nuke! =?UTF-8?Q?=3D=20New=20XML?=
    • From: rjelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>

• References:
  • Pete's blend for XMLlite
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • Re: Pete's blend for XMLlite
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>