Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> You don't have an isomorphism yet, since the range > of g (hence the domain of f) is only a subset of all > S-expressions over atoms and strings. But that's fixable. I knew I shouldn't have deleted the first part of my message. I believe most folks are being sloppy. They don't really mean a 1:1 mapping, they mean: "why have XML syntax since we can easily map that into s-expr's" So I consider the problem solved. :) > Then h(x) includes the element node "<bar a='b'>world</bar>" > and the text node "!". There's no f :: S-Exp -> XML that > can satisfy h(x) = h(f(g(x))), since g(x) is just the > string 'hello'. I was going for well-formed XML documents, not fragments. The XML1.0 spec doesn't talk about fragments. But if you really want all that stuff, then push things down a level, defining top-level forms of element, node, and progn. :) /r$
|
