• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• To: David Lee <dlee@c...>
• Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:17:11 -0400

David Lee scripsit:

> Is there really such a dearth of full XML processors that MicroXML
> has value over simply coding to simpler XML by convention ?

No, of course not.  It's the Really Simple Data Model that makes MicroXML
interesting, which is why I resist any attempts to complicate it, with the
possible exception of PIs in a very limited way.  Everything is an element,
and an element has a map from attribute names to values and a sequence
including elements or strings or both.

> Noone is making you use the full (and ugly?) breath of XML in your
> documents - and (IMHO) Unlike SGML, there is a *plethora* of full XML
> parsers and processors available, yea even in the Browser.

Right.  But unless you are usiung a complete XML stack (XQuery/XSLT and
XML database), eventually you have to bind your XML to some third-generation
language, and that's where full XML is a big pain.  The Really Simple Data
Model is really easy to work with.

> "Why not just use XML ?"  Or for that matter, JSON.  What is the value
> add of a *new* standard.

If JSON is sufficient, use it.  If not, MicroXML provides a data model
simpler than JSON's but compatible with full XML.

-- 
Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes    John Cowan <cowan@c...>
of a creatific thinkerizer.             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
   --Peter da Silva

• References:
  • RE: "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basic principles of ...
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • RE: "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basicprinciples of ...
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
  • RE: "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basicprinciples of ...
    • From: David Lee <dlee@c...>