On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:35:10 -0500
Amelia A Lewis <> wrote:
> 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?
>
> That leaves: attribute on the root--or some other--element.
I.e. it leaves it down to the user? I believe the goal
is that any decent XML parser would flag your uxml (like it)
document as well formed...
Wouldn't check your 'uns' well-formedness though.
> 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.
I'd prefer the root attribute? But basically down to the parser
writer?
If a PI, what do you decide when you meet it half way down
the document? POXML up until then, now switch parsers?
Messy?
>
> 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.
Layers = complexity? I'd hope not.
--
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
