Individual comments on SRFI 107
John Cowan
(18 Nov 2012 19:36 UTC)
|
Re: Individual comments on SRFI 107 Per Bothner (18 Nov 2012 20:17 UTC)
|
Re: Individual comments on SRFI 107
John Cowan
(18 Nov 2012 21:07 UTC)
|
Re: Individual comments on SRFI 107 Per Bothner 18 Nov 2012 20:17 UTC
On 11/18/2012 11:36 AM, John Cowan wrote: > Here are the individual comments on SRFI 107 that have occurred to me > so far: Thanks for the feedback! > 1) Attribute names and values cannot be replaced by enclosed expressions. > That should be allowed. They can, unless I'm missing your point: The attribute name is given by an xml-name-form, which can be an xml-enclosed-expression. Likewise, xml-attribute-value can contain xml-escaped. What is not supported explicitly are attribute-valued expressions. One could extend xml-true-attribute to: xml-true-attribute ::= xml-name-form=xml-attribute-value | xml-enclosed-expression where xml-escaped would be an expression that evaluates to an attribute value. > 2) It should be made clear early that the lexical syntax does not allow > whole XML documents to be inserted. I'll send another email suggesting > a way to represent whole documents. Ok. > 3) It should also be made clear early that the lexical syntax is a > superset of XML syntax. I can change the abstract to: We specify a reader extension that reads data in a superset of XML/HTML format, and produces XML-node values. If we drop the semantics parts as you recommended earlier, then perhaps: We specify a reader extension that reads data in a superset of XML/HTML format, and produces conventional S-expressions. > 4) I believe that the namespace mapping passed to $xml-element$ should be > wrapped in (quote ...) in order to lift the restriction that $xml-element$ > needs to be a macro rather than a procedure. I don't believe that works - at least it might cause major problems. The namespace mappings provide bindings that should be visible in enclosed expressions. So at least in the my use-case $xml-element$ has to be a macro. Though one could still wrap the namespace list in quotes to support some use-cases that don't need that, and then applications that want to support true lexical namespace bindings can just strip the quotes in the macro. > 5) Change $resolve-qname$ and $entity-reference$ to $xml-resolve-qname$ > and $xml-entity-reference$ for uniformity. I realize that in Kawa QNames > have a wider scope than just XML, but that won't necessarily be true > in other implementations of SRFI 107. If these forms seem too verbose, > $xml-qname$ and $xml-entity$ work for me. In XML terminology, an "entity" is a "piece of text" - for example a file or a string. An entity reference is an identifier that resolves to an entity. So I'm not sure ($xml-entity$ NAME) would be a good idea. I don't mind a slightly more verbose $xml-entity-reference$. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/