[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [relax-ng] Limitation in the compact syntax
James Clark scripsit: > Round-tripping (compact -> xml -> compact) while preserving special syntax > for RNG elements embedded in annotations would be tricky: you would have to > figure out the maximal subtree that corresponded to a syntactically legal > pattern (or name class?) and then use compact syntax for such subtrees, > recursively handling annotations inside such subtrees. *Perfect* round-tripping would require that, yes. (Note that XML > RNC > XML already doesn't work correctly.) I would be content if conversion from XML syntax to compact syntax didn't regenerate embedded RNG within annotations; this is independent of *accepting* compact syntax (within braces) within annotations. > I think this would add significant complexity to an implementation and more > importantly to the specification, without providing much practical benefit. I think it will be very important for any kind of layered protocol over RNG. I agree that ooRNG as written does not require this, but it does not follow that there will never be such things: indeed, I think layering of this sort is to be encouraged, not discouraged, and failing to make it easy for compact-syntax authors to use it will indeed be discouragement. -- John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC