Re: Non XML syntaxes
From: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...> > What is new (except to Lispers) is the idea of a standardized intermediate > syntax into which the surface syntaxes can be translated. We do not need > one parser per vocabulary *per implementation*; it suffices to have a > single standard translator from the specialized syntax to the general one. Don't forget SGML short-references. You can normalize a short-refed document into a fully tagged document. Where SGML short tags go wrong in the XML world is that they disrupt well-formedness: as well as the nice <formula>a^2</formula> which expands to <formula>a<sup>2</sup></formula> it also allows <formula>a^2</sup></formula> So any reintroduction of a short-ref-like mechanism into XML must be as a post-process (or Schema process) with WF-XML in and WF-XML out (augmented with other infotypes if you like). WXS has its lists and regular expressions, and Simon's Regular Fragmentations goes a little further. I don't think these go far enough in their current forms. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format