> The problem is, it isn't XML. Maybe I'm missing the point, but it seems > to me that you've just created YAML; XML is supposed to make the mechanism > of parsing these files easier by providing two well defined properties: > well-formedness and the potential to validate (partially) the structure of > the document.
you bring up good points, to which i have a few responses that may or may not sway you... - it's *not* YAML because it's not an ML. it's limited (intentionally) to tree structures (where XML describes document markup). - it would support schemas and dtd's (which would stay the same) that describe tree structured documents. you would get all the well-formedness and validation properties therein. > XML has been doing this for years. Admittedly its a tad verbose, but > there are worse things. Why reinvent the wheel yet again? i guess my root feeling here is that tree data is not really a document. it can certainly be *treated* as a document, but it's really a subclass of documentness. it's treeness and so it seems reasonable to have a special syntax that is better able to describe "tree documents". > The rules you have defined are fine as far as they go, but I'm willing to > bet there are lots of issues you haven't address. For example, how do you > manage importing external documents? i don't think this *should* come up, as we're only replacing the SAX level of DOM. it *should* in theory be 100% transparent to higher level things like document parsers, validators, schemas etc. that is, if the XML people have done there job optimally... > My $0.02. (I mourn the loss of the cent character from the keyboard... > and yes, I do remember when there was a cent character..) ;-) would like to here your reactions to my refinements here... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
