• From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@g...>
• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:56:36 +0000

Correction: I guess I should have spelt that 'MicroXML' rather than 'Micro XML'
with the space. If nothing else, it helps people searching / looking
it up and to
preserve James' naming of it.

Is there traction on the 'uXML' name? Is that an alias? Is it just
'&mgr;XML' misspelt?
(i.e. muXML?) Personally I prefer the name James gave it in his write-up:
MicroXML (without a space between Micro and XML). It saves confusion.

----
Stephen D Green



On 16 December 2010 14:43, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@g...> wrote:
> Now we have 'Micro XML', can't have a Micro XML Schema (Micro XSD)?
>
> What would it be?
>  no namespaces means no imports for a start
> ...
>
> What would be its role, since the schema might not necessarily be readable
> in all parsers capable of parsing Micro XML? Or would we want a version
> of XML Schema which could be so parsed? Or would we be more likely to
> recommend alternatives?
>
> Would it be classed as an early implementation of Micro XML?
>
> Would be now revisit the whole XML stack and recreate it or profile it for
> Micro XML?
>
> ----
> Stephen D Green
>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Micro XSD for Micro XML?
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>

• References:
  • Micro XSD for Micro XML?
    • From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@g...>