"C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> writes:
> 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
Indeed. It’s useful for iXML to have an identifiable “magic number”[1].
> 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"?>
That’s clever, but isn’t it also inviting a certain amount of confusion?
If you type <?xml instead of <?ixml that’s going to be quite different.
Given that iXML and XML rub shoulders, I’m not sure we want to make the
distinction “blurry”.
We already use parentheses for grouping, so I’m not an immediate fan of
wrapping the prolog in them. I think I’d favor something that wasn’t
already in the syntax. Luckily, there’s no real pressure here for it to
be a single character. So this could work:
::: The prolog goes here :::
If I hadn’t *just* said that I favor something that isn’t already in the
syntax, I’d be tempted to suggest Python-style multiline strings:
"""
The prolog goes here
"""
Be seeing you,
norm
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_format#Magic_number
--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica
Received on Friday, 15 December 2023 18:25:48 UTC