Am 08.05.2014 04:00, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> I exclaimed:
>>> Hmm. Technically I don't think "<*" is legal at all in XML.
> On Wed, 7 May 2014 20:05:52 -0400, John Cowan
> replied:
>> It's illegal in the surface syntax. To express it in element
>> content or an attribute value, you must writ
I exclaimed:
> > Hmm. Technically I don't think "<*" is legal at all in XML.
On Wed, 7 May 2014 20:05:52 -0400, John Cowan replied:
> It's illegal in the surface syntax. To express it in element
> content or an attribute value, you must write "<*".
Yes. Which means you could write it, and then
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
> Hmm. Technically I don't think "<*" is legal at all in XML.
It's illegal in the surface syntax. To express it in element
content or an attribute value, you must write "<*".
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Uneasy lies the head
On Wed, 07 May 2014 21:18:34 +0200, "Jörg F. Wittenberger" said:
> ... However in my case the XML
> parser *always* gets the source code first. And the source is
> re-created from the parsed tree upon need. The sweet-read procedure
> only sees some element's literal content.
>
> In other word
On 07 May 2014 21:48:45 +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger
wrote:
> it just occured to me that |* and *| might be good aliases to <* and *>
> too. If { and } could be problematic.
Those would *look* okay but wouldn't work on many Lisps (Common Lisp, Scheme).
The "|" introduces a literal atom on
it just occured to me that |* and *| might be good aliases to <* and *>
too. If { and } could be problematic.
Just: those in turn... hm, does the sweet read code actually rely on the
read implementation of the underlying Scheme? I had the impression that it
would read char by char anyway.
On M
On Thu, 01 May 2014 13:58:07 +0200, "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
> Q2: Would it be a good idea to allow this in the official spec?
> Embedding in XML seems to have broad uses these days and I foresee use
> cases for sweet list especially in domain specific languages.
I really want to keep the spec sta
