[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: finishing SRFI-107 - representation of namespace declarations
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
> 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