xml:id RE: [sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question
Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:18:07 +0100
Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Jirka Kosek
> | I think that important requirement is to have 1:1 mapping between
> | CTM and XTM.
> Hmmm. This can be interpreted two ways, I think. Do you mean a 1:1
> syntactical mapping, so that they have the same syntactical structure,
> or that both should be able to fully represent TMDM?
> | IMHO there should be also escape mechanism (like [...] in RELAX NG
> | compact syntax) which is able to serialize arbitrary XML content
> | that is outside of XTM namespace (e.g. documentation).
> This is needed to fully support TMDM, now that we have support for
> embedded markup, and so I agree that this is another thing that should
> go into CTM.
While an interesting and potentially valuable idea, this is
the kind of thing that profoundly alters the requirements
on programmers -- in essense it means that in addition to
writing a parser for CTM they must also provide support for
XML fragment parsing and validation (which is markedly a lot
more work and also decidedly different than XML document
One might want to consider the impact this proposal would
have on implementations. It certainly raises the bar to
entry considerably and would require both an EBNF for CTM
and another for XML. With XTM 1.1 at least the parser was
My initial reaction was "yikes!"
Murray Altheim http://www.altheim.com/murray/
Strategic and Services Development
The Open University Library
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK .
believe that everything is for
you until you discover
that you are for it
"The Robin and the Worm" by Don Marquis.