Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?

At 19:23 19/08/1998 , you wrote:

  | I think that the solution is very simple. 
  | 
  | The new syntax should be seen as a shorthand for the full, verbose, XML
  | form. 
  | 
  | It would be the parser responsibility to translate the compact form into
  | the normalised, "canonical" fully-XML form so that the application
  | programmer can be oblivious of this syntax details.

How does this resolve the problem?

This approach means that:

* Custom parsers still need to be written for XSL.

* They still need to be able to parse the "shorthand" form.

* They would then be required to do an additional mapping
  to a "long" form.

Isn't this more work, not less, and still leaves the
_very_ undesirable situation of having "non-XML" XML?

Cheers,

James

-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Beyond the Idea"
 ACN 081 019 623


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list