[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: MicroXML
Oops. And this time to the list. On 13 December 2010 09:42, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote:
...I think everyone takes "XML" to mean "XML 1.0 + XML Namespaces" so Absolutely not. XML is XML. Possibly
casual observers might confuse "XML" with "XML 1.0 + XML Namespaces" but
a FAQ is all that's needed to sort that out. The only reason such a
confusion would be important is if it made it too impractical for
existing parsers to handle MicroXML. For all the parsers I know of, it
would work just fine, or need very minor tweaks. Do you know of any
where that is not the case? For me (and for quite a few who have spoken up on the list, putting paid to your "everyone" claim), exactly what is needed is something "designed to be a subset of XML 1.0 but not of XML 1.0 + XML Namespaces." -- Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net Weblog: http://copia.ogbuji.net Poetry ed @TNB: http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/ Founding Partner, Zepheira http://zepheira.com Linked-in: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/ Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/uche Twitter: http://twitter.com/uogbuji http://www.google.com/profiles/uche.ogbuji
[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
|