Hi Neil, As the XML and Web server maintainer, I am willing to talk about how to make the xexprs better. Even though you had the email message earlier this month, I don't understand what changes you think need to be made. Whatever changes, it is very important that everything stay compatible.
Jay On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > Would PLT be willing to change sexprs in the near future to a new 'standard' > sexp-based representation for XML? > > The goals are: (1) unify SXML and PLT's xexprs; (2) make a few improvements > on both. > > The practical problem is getting this new representation adopted by PLT and > others. Otherwise, I might as well stick with SXML, the current de facto > standard. > > Regarding PLT adoption, I'm thinking that the new representation could start > with xexprs, replace the non-sexp structs with sexp forms, and add a few > missing things. PLT's implementation of this representation could be made > backward-compatible with programs that use the old sexpr representation. > > I'd want to involve a PLT representative and at least Oleg or Kirill in > reviewing the proposal and suggesting any changes. I suspect this should be > a SRFI at some point. > > -- > http://www.neilvandyke.org/ > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev > -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://teammccarthy.org/jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
