Re: Status of MicroXML?
Thanks, James for the clarification. Then as I argued earlier why can't XML users (current and "future -- who might need something like MicroXML") use a subset of the existing XML 1.0 or 1.1 standard (which as I said if user's want they could use only the well-formed layer, optional validation and/or processing instructions and so on)? I felt that developing something like XML 2.0/3.0 (which are discussed in other threads by Liam and Elliotte I believe) to add and fix things from XML 1.0/1.1, instead of inventing language and name like MicroXML is probably a good idea. Perhaps the future XML 2.0 standard (if..) can take ideas from MicroXML (i.e get benefits from it's use-cases), and then users can use a subset of future XML 2.0 standard (to my opinion XML 2.0 needs to be equivalent or larger in scope than the XML 1.0/1.1 standard). Perhaps the idea of MicroXML looks like a language profile concept, which to my opinion is fine but then IMHO we should mention that MicroXML is a profile of XML 1.0, and not that it is an altogether new language. On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:15 AM, James Clark <email@example.com> wrote: > Huh? MicroXML is a subset of XML 1.0. > James -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi
[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