> Their logic for developing the new language seems to be that XML
> is implicitly a tree-structured language, but they want to represent
> things that aren't most easily shown as trees, such as overlapping,
> parallel classifications of the same data. Their examples
> are the Bible,
> where you can have "chapters and verses" versus "sections and
> paragraphs",
> and structures that represent edited text, where insertions
> and deletions
> can easily overlap with any document-related structural elements.
You can do that in XML if you want. Perhaps not trivially, but you don't write that
kind of stuff wihtout tools anyway.
>
> > 2) The brackets don't appear to nest.
>
> Oddly enough, I believe they do, but they've chosen syntax (as I
> understand it) that doesn't make it obvious, at least to my eye.
> Paraphrasing their examples a bit, the basic tagging seems to
> go like this:
Well I disagree. (Who would have thought it!) I think nesting requires you to obey the
conventional usage of brackets - opening and closing - and these examples surely don't
do that for } and { (Sure they nesy in some way, but in the way that people would
expect them to)
L.
- Automatic footer for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe discuss
To join the announcements list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe announce
To receive a help file, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] help
This list is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
If you have any problems or questions, please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
