• From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
• To: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 09:47:53 +0530

Thanks, James for the clarification.

Then as I argued earlier why can't XML users (current and "future --
who might need something like MicroXML") use a subset of the existing
XML 1.0 or 1.1 standard (which as I said if user's want they could use
only the well-formed layer, optional validation and/or processing
instructions and so on)?

I felt that developing something like XML 2.0/3.0 (which are discussed
in other threads by Liam and Elliotte I believe) to add and fix things
from XML 1.0/1.1, instead of inventing language and name like MicroXML
is probably a good idea. Perhaps the future XML 2.0 standard (if..)
can take ideas from MicroXML (i.e get benefits from it's use-cases),
and then users can use a subset of future XML 2.0 standard (to my
opinion XML 2.0 needs to be equivalent or larger in scope than the XML
1.0/1.1 standard).

Perhaps the idea of MicroXML looks like a language profile concept,
which to my opinion is fine but then IMHO we should mention that
MicroXML is a profile of XML 1.0, and not that it is an altogether new
language.

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:15 AM, James Clark <jjc@j...> wrote:
> Huh? MicroXML is a subset of XML 1.0.
> James




-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Status of MicroXML?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Status of MicroXML?
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>

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