This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 107 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 107 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On 03/30/2013 10:57 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Per Bothner scripsit:It is more important to preserve the XML conceptual "information model",Absolutely, but SRFI 107 models only a part of the XML Infoset <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset>, of which (ahem) I was the principal editor.
Yes, I actually consulted that today and noticed the "coincidence" of the name. Glad to confirm my assumption they're one and the same. (I also know a John Cowan socially, but he doesn't appear to be you ...)
SRFI 107 as currently written does not support the concept of an XML document - whether we mean: (1) XML document as a file format. (2) DOM Document as a data type for representing the "significant" informationIt's the second concept I mean.SRFI-107 doesn't directly support either. I think APIs supporting both are desirable - and SRFI-107 should hopefully work well with such APIs. However, this process has dragged on long enough, and working with documents seems like new functionality that I think should be saved for future work.In that case, perhaps this SRFI should be renamed "XML element reader syntax".
First, this SRFI also has a reader syntax for PI nodes, comment nodes, and CDATA nodes. There is no support for (top-level) attribute nodes, though you can write them with a $xml-attribute$ constructor. My assumption is a Scheme API for XML would have standard function calls for creating DOM Nodes, and the SRFI-107 syntax would be basically syntactic sugar. Some other languages also provide similar XML "literals". My goal is not to embed XML documents inside a program, but to provide a more familiar syntax equivalent to node constructor expressions. XQuery has equivalent functionality as this proposal: XML-style syntax for elements, PI, and comments. For attributes and documents you need to use "computed constructors". "EcmaScript for XML" is similar. Visual Basic does support "XML Document literals", and I guess we can add support for them. Perhaps we can allow: #<?xml optional-stuff?><root>...</root> and/or: #<!DOCTYPE root optional-stuff><root>...</root> And of course we can use SRFI1-108 in some way. However, doing this "right" adds a fair bit of extra work and complexity. It also pushes the limits of my expertise. The obvious reader translation is to an $xml-document$ constructor. Beyond that things are less obvious. Because the infoset for an XML document is rather complex, it seems cleaner to use keywords - but alas keywords are far from standard: We get into the question of whether to use SRFI-88-style keywords or plain symbols. I like SRFI-88-style keywords of course (Kawa has them), but obviously this limits portability. (Though if we add them to R7RS-large I'd have less reluctance ...) If you think the name "XML reader syntax" is misleading, we could change the name to "Basic XML reader syntax" by analogy with SRFI-28.
Indeed, that is rather vague - and raises these questions: (1) What are "standard Scheme character names"? I suggest going with the R7RS names.I'm happy with that, of course.(2) When it comes to an implementation supporting "standard Scheme character names", is this a "must" or a "should"? I could go either way. (3) Do we want a different answer for SRFI-17 and SRFI-108/-109? I'd prefer not.I'd prefer a SHOULD for all three SRFIs.
Updated in: http://per.bothner.com/tmp/srfi-109/srfi-109.html -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/