• From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• To: Uche Ogbuji <uche@o...>
• Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:30:15 +0000

>> ...I think everyone takes "XML" to mean "XML 1.0 + XML Namespaces" so
>> to say something is a "subset of XML" but not mean namespaces you
>> might get done for false advertising :)
>
> Absolutely not.  XML is XML.  Possibly casual observers might confuse "XML"
> with "XML 1.0 + XML Namespaces" but a FAQ is all that's needed to sort that
> out.

Eh?  I must have missed something.  It sounds like you are saying only
a casual observer would think "XML" includes namespaces?


> For me (and for quite a few who have spoken up on the list, putting paid to
> your "everyone" claim), exactly what is needed is something "designed to be
> a subset of XML 1.0 but not of XML 1.0 + XML Namespaces."

Again I don't follow.  I'm suggesting dropping namespaces completely
from the subset.


-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: MicroXML
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@o...>

• References:
  • MicroXML
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
  • Re: MicroXML
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • Re: MicroXML
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
  • Re: MicroXML
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • Re: MicroXML
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@o...>