Re: Adding implicit string values

It seems to be a good idea to avoid the second responsibility of
transforming trees. The incoming data pieces should come out of the parser
in the same order but marked as XML nodes. Does this restriction throw any
well-known context-free language out of the scope?

Aleksei

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 16:13, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday 15 April 2021 12:02:12 (+02:00), Tom Hillman wrote:
>
> There may be technical barriers that make it impractical, but I feel we
> ought at least to aim to ensure that ixml is capable of expressing these
> relationships for any XML document and an equivalent non-XML representation
> - and vice versa.
>
> These are new, and rather strong requirements. We should be very careful
> of just accepting these without careful consideration.
>
>   Clearly there must be a limits on what we can define as 'equivalent' -
> for instance, I don't think that re-ordering of data in either
> representation should be in scope (with the possible exception of some
> attribute data).  But fundamental XML features like namespaces are, I feel,
> a reasonable expectation.
>
> Implicit values like this might be more of a stretch, but it seems
> desirable to me that a non-XML markup document like:
>
> *this*
>
>
> should be interpreted with corresponding grammars to either of the
> following representations using iXML:
>
> <html:span class="emphasis">this</html:span>
> <i>this</i>
>
> But now you are targeting specific XML document types, which was not in
> the requirements of ixml.
>
>
> Steven
>
>