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

Re: Status of MicroXML?

• From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
• To: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
• Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 09:06:58 +0530

Thought of writing on this thread.

I think for a standard based language (either from W3C or Oasis for
example), it must be fairly general purpose. Since we already have a
complete XML standard (XML 1.0 and 1.1), I thought it would probably
be fine if we can just move to XML 2.0 or 3.0 (as has been discussed
recently on other threads in this list) fixing things on which there
are sufficient consensus within our community.

If we are given a XML standard (1.0 or 1.1 currently), nobody stops us
from using a tiny subset of it -- and remain compliant to current XML
standard (like for e.g only using a well-formed layer, use validation
only if needed, using optional processing-instructions and so on).

IMHO producing a parallel MicroXML standard with no relation to
current XML 1.0 or 2.0 standard would create a huge disconnect with
the current XML community -- which I think is not a good idea.

My personal opinion would be to work on something like XML 2.0 or 3.0
(i.e we build on top of current XML stack -- adding and fixing things)
instead of forking on a different track (and using a name
XML[MicroXML..] for it).

Another idea is that MicroXML proponents might use a name like TinyXML
instead of MicroXML (since from the discussions I've heard so far,
MicroXML is a pretty close and non-extensible language so using word
"XML" as a suffix to this language name, to my opinion would confuse
the markup community).

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com> wrote:
> How are we doing on MicroXML?  Discussion seems to have moved on to trying
> to fix HTML5!
>
> Do we have consensus that we want to do MicroXML?  It is worth doing some
> sort of last call vote (or whatever vote gets done to add something to a
> standards track)?
>
> Personally, while I might wish to change some of the details of MicroXML,
> the issues I have are in the noise and are insignificant compared to the
> issues that it addresses.
>
> I think we should all head down to the pub for a celebratory drink while
> James writes it up!
>
> Pete Cordell
> Codalogic Ltd
> Interface XML to C++ the easy way using C++ XML
> data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
> Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
> for more info




-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Status of MicroXML?
    • From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>

• References:
  • Status of MicroXML?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>