[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML
Hi, Yes my message was rather obscure! Let me try again Oleg A. Paraschenko said: > Hello Juan, > > I'm a bit confused by your post. SXML is just yet another representation > of XML infoset. I think you can't derive new properties of the infoset > by switching from angle brackets to s-expressions. Yes, i understood mapping between xml and sxml. > On Mon, 22 May 2006 06:12:21 -0700 (PDT) > <juanrgonzaleza@c...> wrote: > > ... >> Now take the SEXPR (root 5) >> >> Using above mapping, this would be translated to XML > > Note that this would not be transated to XML at all. The correct sexp is > > (root "5") (root 5) in the case of content MathML. E.g. Common LISP (plus 2 3) ---> <apply><plus/><cn>2</cn><cn>3</cn></apply> >> >> This was the way taken by the w3c in the original HTML math draft. >> However, the current MathML 2.0 specification uses (again ignoring >> tokenization by brevity) >> >> <apply><root/>5</apply> >> >> MathML authors claim several advantages using this last content model. >> Then the (more or less exoteric) question is, would the SXML >> >> (em "important") >> >> be encoded as >> >> <apply><em/>important</apply> >> >> rather than traditional >> >> <em>important</em>? > > No. SXML > > (em "important") > > should be encoded as > > <em>important</em>? > > As for > > <apply><root/>5</apply>, > > it should be encoded in SXML as > > (apply (root) "5"). Yes, I know if you follow SXML XML maping i defined at beggining of my message. But i was asking for a new mapping SEXRP ---> XML inspirated in Content MathML model. Now take the SEXPR (minus 3) from pure lisp. A priori one could wait a matching like <minus><cn>3</cn></minus> *if* one applies the SXML-XML mapping but Content MathML defines a *new* mapping and uses <apply><minus/><cn>3</cn></apply> because claimed advantages. My real point is if we would are providing something like <apply><em/>important</apply> rather than traditional <em>important</em> >> >> That is, are there advantages on copying the MathML 2.0 content model >> for example in some future XHTML version? > > I'm bad in philosophy, skipping the question. > >> >> >> Juan R. >> >> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) >> > > > -- > Oleg Parashchenko olpa@ http://xmlhack.ru/ XML news in Russian > http://uucode.com/blog/ Generative Programming, XML, TeX, Scheme > XSieve at XTech 2006: http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/schedule/detail/44 Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
|
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
|