- From: Nico Verwer (Rakensi) <nverwer@rakensi.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 22:39:40 +0100
- To: public-ixml@w3.org
On 01-12-2025 20:50, Peter Flynn wrote: > Is there *any* circumstance anyone can think of where the fact that > XML uses these characters, and this language is called *Invisible* > XML, will work to our detriment? And on 01-12-2025 21:51, Graydon Saunders wrote: > [...] @, like < and >, have deeply established meaning in XML contex If my proposal for a presentation at the ixml symposium in February is going to be approved, using '<' and '>' is going to be confusing for me. My propsed presentation is about having an XML document as the input for a parser. This allows `<name>` to occur in the right-hand side of a rule. This means that if there is an XML element `<name>` in the input document at the current position, it (and its contents) will be recognized and parsing will continue after the element. There is a lot more to this, but the point is that it uses '<' and '>'. Since XML element names do not start with a digit, my proposal does not conflict with the '<>' notation for repetitions, but it could be confusing. However, I expect repetitions to be more important in ixml than my proposal. I think many options that were suggested in this thread are acceptable alternatives, and I don't have a clear preference.
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2025 21:39:48 UTC