Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Liam R E Quin scripsit: > If MicroXML is to go anywhere it probably needs to be rich enough for > . XSLT to be expressed in it You could do that, but why would you? It would be a pain in the ass to write XSLT without any element prefixes. > . Web pages, yes with PHP, and, as John notes, HTML compatibility > . be a close enough subset of XML and (for the data model) of XDM that > existing software can process them. No reason why not, since it's a subset. > . be formattable directly with CSS - but the CSS WG is open to new > proposals, so this is not too onerous provided that the naming/namespace > mechanism ends up not being too bizarre. It's the same mechanism used with XML, just less flexible. > . have a clear easily-understood relationship to JSON (documents vs > data-binding), to XML, to Web services and the existing XML stack. XML doesn't have a clear and easily understood relationship to JSON in the general case. I defined two mappings, one for round-tripping MicroXML through JSON and the other for round-tripping JSON through MicroXML, both lossless. But I repeat, there's no real reason to use MicroXML as an XML replacement, particularly not if you have a full XML stack anyway. -- By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall cowan@c... have neither the Ring nor me! --Frodo http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
