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

Re: XML Redux

• From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
• To: "Dave Pawson" <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
• Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:34:42 -0000

Original Message From: "Dave Pawson"

>>     abstract: <<para { style : "bold" }>Here be some dragons</para>>
>>
>> such that '<' denotes the start of a special kind of construct in the
>> same way that '{', '[', and '"' denote the start of special kinds of
>> construct.
>
>
> Or require that 'text' be contained in markup, as per xml 1.0?
> Doesn't sound onerous Pete?
>
> Why would you want it *not* to start with markup?

Hi Dave,

I figure if you consider JSON to be a set of name-value pairs of the form:

    name : value

then the equivalent form for XML elements is:

    <name>value</name>

Therefore a value of type marked-up text ought to correspond to the 
'content' production in XML, which is:

[43]    content    ::=    CharData? ((element | Reference | CDSect | PI | 
Comment) CharData?)*

i.e., it needn't start with a start tag.

Also, if you require an initial start tag, then you are effectively doing:

    name : <name>value</name>

giving an additional XML name to the value that already has a name from 
JSON, which seems redundant.

I suppose yet another way to look at it is, is the 'value' simply 'marked-up 
text' (which in simple cases could actually be text with no markup at all) 
or is it 'XML text'?

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Interface XML to C++ the easy way using C++ XML
data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
for more info
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Pawson" <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
To: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
Cc: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>; <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:45 PM
Subject: Re:  XML Redux


>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:27:34 -0000
> "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com> wrote:
>
>> I like the direction of this.  I see a slight problem when you don't
>> want your marked up text to start with markup.  i.e. you want:
>>
>>     abstract: Here be <em>some</em> dragons
>>
>> Maybe you have to do:
>>
>>     abstract: <Here be <em>some</em> dragons>
>>
>> and:
>>
>>     abstract: <<para { style : "bold" }>Here be some dragons</para>>
>>
>> such that '<' denotes the start of a special kind of construct in the
>> same way that '{', '[', and '"' denote the start of special kinds of
>> construct.
>
>
> Or require that 'text' be contained in markup, as per xml 1.0?
> Doesn't sound onerous Pete?
>
> Why would you want it *not* to start with markup?
>
> But then looking at Mikes
>> {  authors: [
>>       {name: "Michael Kay", affiliation: "Saxonica"},
>>       {name: "Liam Quin", affiliation: "W3C"}
>>    ]
>>    abstract: <para { style : "bold" }>Here be some dragons</para>
>>    content: <section { numbers : [1,1,2] }><para>...</para></section>
>> }
>
> I'm not sure if content: is markup? I can see authors as a list..
> Is content: wrapping <section/>
>
>
> Mike?
>
> -- 
>
> regards
>
> -- 
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
> 

• References:
  • XML Redux
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>