Re: Status of MicroXML?
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:25:11 +0700 James Clark <email@example.com> wrote: > The consensus position is not completely obvious, but this is my best > shot, based on all the discussions and feedback, both here and on the > list: > > http://blog.jclark.com/2010/12/more-on-microxml.html > > James Which shows no sign (or need?) for a schema [language]? I'm quite confused as to why someone would want to invent a new schema language particularly for uxml? If I can determine that my XML instance is uxml (well formed and ... not containing stuff that is in XML, not in uxml - whatever that is described as ) then why can't I use relax NG or XSD if I must, as a schema? The only oddity is the optional James 'Keep html5 happy' doctype. Apart from that I think I can use relax as my tool to validate my uxml instance? Am I wrong in this, or has this thread changed to 'lets invent a new schema language'  Let's call it uxml-valid for now. -- 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