[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: The Blueberry Debates...

• From: "Williams, David" <DAVID.WILLIAMS@c...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:01:21 -0400

I apologize for any of my ignorance here...  but I have one question, and one idea..

Question(s)-
((This is really for those people who feel like it, indeed, does...))
How exactly does "Blueberry" break the XML 1.0 specification?  (specifics... what would break, what would work poorly...)

Idea-

I already have a feeling I know the reply to this, but couldn't an XML-Blueberry document once written in ancient hieroglyphs be pre-processed into something that XML 1.0 parsers/processors could understand machine-wise, but that might not be as readily understandable by humans? 

Something such as 

#DEFINE {The upside-down, backwards symbol for androgyny} =  [target XML 1.0 rep here:"Prince"]

And then 1.0 parsers could convert the document to something that they can process?
(ie)

if (xml_version.equals("1.0")){do_that_thing();}
if (xml_version.equals("Blueberry")) {preprocess(); do_that_thing();}


Or maybe not, I am just not clear on how the existing specification would be absolutely broken... but if so, shouldn't there be some way for a community (let's say Bhurmese, or whatever) to have an associated, open-sourced, free-to-use,  MyCollectionOfLinguisticSymbols-TO-XML 'style-sheet' or 'pre-processor directive'?


David Scott Williams

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The Blueberry Debates...
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
• Next by Date: Re: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
• Previous by thread: RE: Layering (was RE: Blueberry/Unicode/XML)
• Next by thread: Re: The Blueberry Debates...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread