On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:35:10 -0500 Amelia A Lewis <email@example.com> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:01:11 +0700, James Clark wrote: > > I wrote a post describing a fairly minimal subset of XML: > > > > http://blog.jclark.com/2010/12/microxml.html > > Nice. I like the way that it copes with namespaces; I think it may > improve upon Michael Kay's suggestion, even. > > I have a problem with it. > > How do I tell whether it's safe to use my uXML parser instead of my > (heavier) XML 1.0 + Namespace in XML + XML:Base + XML:ID + whatever > parser? > > That leaves: attribute on the root--or some other--element. I.e. it leaves it down to the user? I believe the goal is that any decent XML parser would flag your uxml (like it) document as well formed... Wouldn't check your 'uns' well-formedness though. > This suggests (to me) that the likeliest hack will be to create > custom semantically important comments, possibly paired comments if > uXML is widely deployed embedded (start and stop), although > well-formedness might make a single indicator sufficient. > > Personally, I'd rather have a PI. I'd prefer the root attribute? But basically down to the parser writer? If a PI, what do you decide when you meet it half way down the document? POXML up until then, now switch parsers? Messy? > > In other issues, I think that there may be an over-emphasis on HTML5 > compatibility, even at the expense of XML compatibility. > > If this were to be of interest, I'd expect to see it "grow up" with > additional layers, at some point. Layers = complexity? I'd hope not. -- regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format