[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Status of MicroXML?

• From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
• To: "xml-dev@lists.xml.org" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
• Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:14:12 -0500

James Clark wrote:

> MicroXML is a subset of XML 1.0.


And Mukul Gandhi followed with:

> 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 


I agree with Mukul. A Web developer today could use just the subset of XML 1.0 that Micro XML identifies. 

In James Clark's original blog he argued that part of the reason XML never achieved its vision is because of the complexity of its many ancillary specifications:

> Then there are the specs. For JSON, you have a 10-page RFC, 
> with the meat being a mere 4 pages. For XML, you have 
> XML 1.0, XML Namespaces, XML Infoset, XML Base, xml:id, 
> XML Schema Part 1 and XML Schema Part 2.  

Even by simplifying XML and Namespaces there is still a large set of specifications that a Web developer must grapple with: Micro XML, Simplified Namespaces, XML Base, xml:id, XML Schema part 1, and XML Schema Part 2. I am skeptical that the reduction in complexity provided by Micro XML and Simplified Namespaces will invigorate web developers to embrace XML for the Web.


<Opinion>

    If you buy into XML, you buy into a package deal.
    Here's the basic package:

      (a) a format for data that is well-suited to facilitate 
          querying and transformations
      (b) a language for validating the formatted data
      (c) a programming language for manipulating the
          formatted data
    
    Web developers will embrace XML when they embrace
    the whole package. 

    Web developers do not object to XML as means
    of formatting data, i.e., part (a) of the package.

    Web developers do object to the verbose, arcane
    validation languages (b) and the verbose, arcane XML 
    programming language (c). Specifically, Web developers
    object to XML Schema and XSLT.

    Web developers would embrace the package if XML came
    bundled with a concise, common validation language and 
    a concise, common programming language -- the validation 
    language and programming language are non-XML syntax.

</Opinion>


/Roger

• References:
  • Status of MicroXML?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
  • Re: Status of MicroXML?
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
  • Re: Status of MicroXML?
    • From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
  • Re: Status of MicroXML?
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>