Re: Change “~” to “!”

Hi, I had just looked up the use of ! because I also think of it as the
classic "not" character and would much prefer it to ~ which I associate
with being a type of comparator meaning something unequal (inexactly
expressed) as "almost".

I joined this group with some trepidation because my level of expertise is
different from most of the group. However, I think that perhaps I can offer
some input that is more what semi-expert people who work with XML/XSLT
might think. I have worked with a number of standards and vocabularies over
20 years. I would classify myself as a person who knows how to look up
solutions to problems and .ixml falls squarely into a space that I have had
to confront all through the years. Let's keep it a straightforward as
possible for people new to the text parsing to XML to get rolling.
Regards, Dorothy

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:37 AM Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As long as I’m whittering on about syntax, I might as well run this up
> the proverbial flagpole.
>
> In my experience, “~” is much more commonly associated with
> “approximately” than “not”. I understand that it is used for negation in
> some mathematical notations, but “in some mathematical notations” covers
> a lot of ground. To be honest, I’d expect “￢” rather than “~” in math.
> (I suppose “~” may be used in some notations to mean “complement” which
> is precisely what we mean in ixml, but even we don’t try to use the
> technical term “complement”.)
>
> Furthermore, I think “!” is *very* commonly associated with “not”. It’s
> used that way in a whole range of languages with a C-derived syntax.
> Steven even has an anecdote about how the use of “!” to mean important
> in CSS is confusing *because* so many people think of it as negation.
>
> I propose that we use “!” to negate a character set rather than “~”. In
> addition to being (IMHO) more obvious to users, it would free up “~” for
> some future use. Given our determination to use US ASCII, we need all
> the special characters we can get!
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> --
> Norm Tovey-Walsh
> Saxonica
>