On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:14:10 -0400, John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> David A. Wheeler scripsit:
>
> > A parsing directive is <i>valid</i> if and only if it begins
> > at the beginning of a line, it is terminated by an end of line,
> > and it is not contained inside an expression
> > (e.g., inside parentheses or a collecting list).
>
> I'd simply say that it is an error unless a parsing directive begins,
> etc., and drop the word "valid".

Agreed, much simpler.
I don't want to *forbid* an implementation from accepting such oddness,
but I see no reason to require their support.

> > An implementation may be a "native implementation".
> > A native implementation <em>MUST</em> also accept,
> > in its standard datum readers,
> > a valid <code>#!sweet</code> directive,
> > and from then on it <em>MUST</em> accept
> > sweet-expressions from the same port
> > (until some conflicting directive or instruction is given).
>
> "Also" is a little vague.  I'd say "In addition to all other
> requirements, a native implementation MUST etc."

Agreed.

> > A <i>well-formatted</i> s-expression is an expression interpreted
> > identically by both traditional s-expressions and by sweet-expressions.
>
> I'm not a fan of this term.  What about "polyglot" instead?  (A document
> which is both valid HTML and well-formed XML and has the same meaning
> in both interpretations is called "polyglot HTML".)

Hmm.  I could live with "polyglot", but I worry that the term makes it sound complicated.

Can anyone think of another name?  (If not, I could certainly live with it...)

--- David A. Wheeler