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

Re: Non XML syntaxes

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 00:47:44 +1000
• References: <200210081426.KAA00201@m...>

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

• References:
  • Re: Non XML syntaxes
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Next by Date: Re: Are hyperlinks presentation or content?
• Previous by thread: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• Next by thread: Re: Sky is falling again...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread