[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: finishing SRFI-107 - representation of namespace declarations

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.

Per Bothner scripsit:

> (NOTE: This isn't quite ready yet for review: I think the syntax and
> translations (into core S-expressions) are close to done, but the
> over-all structure needs more work.)

I saw a few typos: for "tagname" read "element name", for "XMLName" read
"XML name", for "builtin" read "built-in", for "segement" read "segment",
for "Booleans" read "booleans", for "consitsing" read "consisting", for
"An possible" read "A possible", for "oter" read "other", for "mininum"
read "minimum", for "pre-defined" read "predefined", for "Testsuite" read
"Test suite".

> The implication is that both $xml-element$ and $resolve-qname$ cannot
> be bound to functions - they must be syntax,  John Cowan has expressed
> a preference that it be possible that these be functions.

On reflection, I don't think this is so important for SRFI 107, where the
list of names is fixed (other than the entity names, which are (constant)
variables anyway).  It matters more for SRFIs 108 and 109.

You know, you haven't stopped talking           John Cowan
since I came here. You must have been           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
vaccinated with a phonograph needle.            cowan@xxxxxxxx
        --Rufus T. Firefly