Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Mike Champion scripsit: > "Infoset" people can also be minimalists, or they > may have stopped worrying and learned to love the PSVI, the XQuery > type system, etc. Oddly, even being an editor of the Infoset I'm still more of a syntax person. > Another way forward, which I doubt if many people will agree with, > might be refactor things along SGML "markup for authors" and > XML "infoset for programmers" lines. Agree on a basic syntax > for XML 2.0 that removes most the stuff that the infoset throws away > and causes the DOM (which basically tries to live in both the > syntax and InfoSet worlds) fits, such as DTDs, entities, entity references, > CDATA sections. That's not to say that people should stop using > entities and CDATA sections, just to say that they "properly" belong in > the SGML world where "syntax sugar" is respected and supported. What I'd like to see for XML 2.0 is a clean separation into two layers: a "top layer" that understands elements, attributes, namespaces, ids, and PIs; and a "bottom layer" that understands character references (by name or number), comments, and literal sections. Each layer would be separately processable; perhaps it would be good for all bottom-layer constructs to be introduced by "&", e.g. "&-- ... &--" for comments and "&< ... &>" for literal sections. This would mean a break with the reference concrete syntax of SGML, but perhaps would still be declarable as a concrete syntax -- I don't know enough to say if that's true. -- One art / There is John Cowan <jcowan@r...> No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter
|
