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

Re: Keeping ISO 8879 Alive (was RE: Markup perspecti

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Keeping ISO 8879 Alive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:52:31 -0400
• In-reply-to: <200208021732.NAA09695@m...>
• References: <D91T1X2X96DBWTURB9RQXSRNXU612X1W.3d4aab68@MChamp>

I've started to do some refactoring in a J2ME parser I'm writing.  The API 
(though not yet the parser) is available at:
http://simonstl.com/projects/tam/

While I do report CDATA, comments, and PIs, I've passed responsibility for 
DOCTYPE processing to the application, if it cares.  I am supporting 
namespaces, per SAX2, and need to add a few methods for applications to 
register prefixes with the parser in case some poor fool defaulted them in 
the DOCTYPE.

Different, maybe interesting, maybe not.  I've got to finish the namespace 
and entity support before the parser itself is ready, but it's pretty good 
so far.  (And thankfully I've written the namespace bits I need before as 
part of the MOE work.)

At 01:19 PM 8/2/2002 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > 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
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Keeping ISO 8879 Alive (was RE: Markup
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Keeping ISO 8879 Alive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Keeping ISO 8879 Alive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Programming for Markup vs. Markup for Programming
• Next by Date: Re: Markup perspective not code (wasRE: Re:URIs, concrete)
• Previous by thread: Re: Keeping ISO 8879 Alive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Next by thread: Re: Keeping ISO 8879 Alive (was RE: Markup
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread