Re: XML and InkML

"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:

>>num  num 'num "num num;
>>num "num  num    * num;
>>
>>I also like this simple scheme because I can easily parse it in XSLT,
> while 
>>"1125 18432'23'43"7"-8 3-5+7  -3+6+2+6 8+3+6:T;+2+4:*T;+3+6+3-6:FF;"
>>is making my stylesheet horrible.
>
> Could I have a full example of this?  It doesn't look substantially
> easier to parse to me.  

It is because there's only one separator that's there all the time.
Compare "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8" and "1 2; 3 4; 5 6; 7 8"

Also, I would favour mandatory whitespace between channels, so we avoid

1-2+3 4'-5'6"7"8

Meaning that each bunch of channel samples is tokenized using ';' as separator
and each channel is plit by ' '

> I also suspect that you'll need to define an XML vocabulary for
> interchange regardless, as this still requires a separate parsing
> process.

Maybe, and I hope the WG will consider it. But I think that it's the
complexity of the syntax that will decide. Do you (or Elliotte) think
that XML Schema should have made dateTime a complex type on the
grounds that it's lexical representation requires a separate parsing
process?

Cheers,

Max.

Received on Monday, 25 August 2003 19:28:32 UTC