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

Re: Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML

• To: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>
• Subject: Re: Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML
• From: "Oleg A. Paraschenko" <olpa@x...>
• Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:01:11 +0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3213.217.124.88.220.1148303541.squirrel@w...>
• Organization: xmlhack.ru
• References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060522112019.02ba51b0@C...><3213.217.124.88.220.1148303541.squirrel@w...>

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.

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")

> 
> 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").

> 
> 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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML
    • From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>

• References:
  • Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML
    • From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: [Schematron-love-in] ISO Schematron Update (RETRY)
• Next by Date: RE: Re: [Schematron-love-in] ISO Schematron Update (RETRY)
• Previous by thread: Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML
• Next by thread: Re: Theoretical ruminations on SXML and XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread