- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:18:46 -0700
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Cc: public-ixml@w3.org
Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> writes: > ... > > I heard a request at the meeting for bracketing. > > So that would mean that any bracketing characters are perfectly > reasonable, non-ambiguous, syntaxes: > > [ixml version "1.1"] > > <ixml version "1.1"> > > (ixml version "1.1") > > but there is no functional reason for the "ixml", so better: > > [version "1.1"] > (version "1.1") > <version "1.1"> Actually, I think there is a reason for the "ixml": human readers who are trying to figure out what format the file they are looking at is in (my mental scenario is someone at a help desk trying to help a bewildered user who has been sent a bunch of files they don't know much about, but anyone asked for help will be in this situation) will have a much better chance of figuring out that the grammar is something to do with something called "ixml" if that word is present -- just as the XML declaration uses 'xml' as a keyword for the same reason. That is or is not a "functional reason", depending on what one takes that phrase to mean. > I personally like the ( ) style, since it looks like you're indicating > "just saying". Steven My first thought, looking at the examples, was that we could do a lot worse than using the syntax of XML processing instructions with pseudo-attributes, and use <?ixml version="1.1"?> Michael -- C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Black Mesa Technologies LLC http://blackmesatech.com
Received on Friday, 15 December 2023 16:25:00 UTC