[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: MicroXML
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? XML declaration not allowed. XML 1.0 and uXML are placed in the position of both claiming to be the canonical format indicated by the absence of a declaration. Processing instruction not allowed (meaning no presentation in the browser via XSLT, either, but that's another issue). Can't use a PI to indicate that this is uXML. Doctype declaration not allowed. In comments on the blog, James seems to be leaning toward allowing the declaration (simplified: <!DOCTYPE root> with no public id, no system id (consequently no external subset) and no internal subset). Problem with introducing it: it can't be effectively used, for uXML, as intended (unless uXML defines a single canonical root element). Problem with using it: generally, a parser errors on encountering one of these anywhere but at the beginning (same problem as with the XML declaration). That leaves: attribute on the root--or some other--element. Does this defeat the design goal of embedding? Specially-formatted comment. That ... simply changes the syntax of processing instructions (which is what happens in HTML, and no doubt will happen in HTML5 as well). Modifying content syntax to carry meaning has a long, inglorious history in HTML. 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. 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. So, for instance, James's grammar describes strings; *someone* is going to want to apply schemata, of some flavor, and introduce 'typing' at some layer. There may be an opportunity to suggest a better layer, but I'd say that if such a slimmed profile were adopted, one can predict some parts of its future (the functionality enhancements) by examining the functionalities provided by accepted and widely-implemented specifications in the XML stack. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis amyzing {at} talsever.com There are two major products that came out of Berkeley: LSD and BSD Unix. We don't believe this to be a coincidence.
[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
|