Subject: Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?
From: James Robertson <jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:33:00 +1000
|
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
|