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

Subject: Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?
From: "Richard Lander" <relander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:24:37 -0400
I think that this dual-approach could be very helpful. The XML syntax would
probably fall away, as people got used to the new, concise syntax. I could
see myself getting used to and liking the new syntax. As James Tauber has
suggested, developing a concise syntax for multiple XML-family specs would
be a very good idea. None of us want to have to know several different sets
of markings for climbing up and down a tree. Still, I think that the XML
syntax is a good alternative to that in the draft, especially as an on-ramp
for XSL or other XML standards. You might think of the XML syntax as a
'reveal codes' (good 'ol WP 5.1) or expansion of the concise syntax.

Upon thinking about the new syntax this morning, I can understand why it was
used. In markup, we tend to be rather verbose in our description of data, at
least compared to others who would rather see data distributed in a binary
files. There has been talk, I think, of compiled HTML. Still, you can't
parse it with any of the existing parsers.


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrice Bonhomme <Patrice.Bonhomme@xxxxxxxx>
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?

>jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx said:
>] We already have a non-XML syntax for XPointers and I don't think
>] anyone would want to argue for an XML version of an XPointer.
>FYI, we've made an XML version of XPointer. We use it within an XML Query
>Language we are developping in a more general purpose, the Silfide
>Language (SIL). You can have a look to the SIL DTD here (documentation is
>available) :
>In our XML Query Language, we can have both version of XPointers, either
>'standard' form or the XML encoding form.
>jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx said:
>] My feeling on the issue is that a spec be developed for tree
>] addressing patterns that serves the needs of both XPointers and XSL
>] patterns. Such a spec could stand apart (but be normative to) both
>] XLink and XSL.
>I Agree.
>  ==============================================================
>  bonhomme@xxxxxxxx               |      Office : B.228
>   |      Phone  : 03 83 59 30 52
>  --------------------------------------------------------------
>   * Serveur Silfide  :
>   * Projet Aquarelle :
>  ==============================================================
> XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread