[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
Per Bothner scripsit:
> Right now SRFI-107's syntax for xml-constructor is a superset of the
> corresponding syntax for XML. That would no longer be true if we required
> ">" to be always quoted.
True. So align SRFI-107 with XML. It makes the definition a hair
longer, but nobody said XML was a trivial standard.
> I'm inclined to think you're right, but I don't see any benefit in
> adding a restriction to prohibit "SRFI 109 constructs" in attribute values
> - it would seem to make the rules and syntax more complicated, just to
> reduce flexibility, without any obvious benefit.
I'm primarily concerned that, when translated into actual XML, it won't
have the effects that people think it will have.
Cash registers don't really add and subtract; John Cowan
they only grind their gears. cowan@xxxxxxxx
But then they don't really grind their gears, either;
they only obey the laws of physics. --Unknown