[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: RS/RE: basic questions



On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Gavin Nicol wrote:

> I'm starting to think seriously now that XML should just be LISP (I
> was half joking before). At least it doesn't confluge syntax and
> semantic interpretation. 

There is also the Interleaf option, of saying that all RE or RS are
ignored (by the application if not the parser): that all of them are just
there for nice formatting of the source code (assunming content models
like ( #PCDATA | an.element) are out of XML and RE/RS aren't used for
content model navigation). 

At the other extreme, there could also be something like the old Macintosh
convention, so that RS/RE is shortreffed to <p> or the paragraph tag (or
"<>" even).  In otherwords, force RE/RS to have a definite meaning largely
precluding its use willy-nilly inside mixed content elements. (It means
that XML might have trouble in editors that handle wraparound by inserting
linebreaks, but that would be bearable.)



Rick Jelliffe            http://www.allette.com.au/allette/ricko
                         email: ricko@allette.com.au
================================================================
Allette Systems          http://www.allette.com.au
                         email: info@allette.com.au
10/91 York St, 2000,     phone: +61 2 9262 4777
Sydney, Australia        fax:   +61 2 9262 4774
================================================================



References: