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

Re: MicroXML

• From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
• To: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@talsever.com>
• Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:40:08 +0000

On 13 December 2010 16:35, Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@talsever.com> wrote:
> 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?"

How important a use case is this, really? Isn't the main use case to facilitate
writing XML such that even the simplest tools and parsers can handle
it properly.
It would be a huge shame if the stumbling block were that for the more complex
tools to handle it you have to add to the complexity of the XML with the risk of
breaking your primary use case, making it less likely that the most modest tools
can handle the XML properly. I'm not much in favor of requiring any *additions*
to a micro XML (uXML??) at all: Making such an addition just so that browsers
can handle it better (with the risk of browsers still ignoring it or
still not being
able to handle it due to HTML5 rules, etc) or making any addition so that more
powerful tools can handle it better seems to contradict the main purpose. It
would be ironic if a tool cannot handle the XML because it is *too* simple. That
tool might have to be declared outside of the scope of the problem. There must
be all the more tools which cannot handle XML when it is too complex and it is
surely to help XML authors write their XML for these which is the main purpose.

----
Stephen D Green

• References:
  • MicroXML
    • From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
  • Re: MicroXML
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@talsever.com>