On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 10:49:06AM -0500, Fred L. Drake wrote:
Christopher G. Petrilli writes:
So my implementation of the <?ztml ... ?> is acceptable under XML guidelines? That was how I interpreted it, but gods only know!
(I didn't catch any of the discussion before Andrew CC'd the XML-SIG, so I think I'm missing some of the context here.) What you probably want to do is to pass an example that uses the PI syntax in all situations that you intend to support (including in attribute values if you want that), and pass it through a validating parser. If it complains, you'll know what's broken. If it doesn't, then go ahead and use it. I'd rather see PI syntax used over comment syntax for either SGML or XML for this sort of processing.
Well, then I'll sit down and write a test suite as soon as I get the brainpower back from your exploding my head, and we can see what explodes and what doesn't. Also, I'm going to tweek the syntax since everyone seems to want to get rid of some vestigal old pieces... Also, I'm not sure it's intended to BE XML, more accurately it's intended to LOOK like XML to an XML editor, the move to full XML for this could be troublesome... for exmaple: <?ztml in variable ?> <!-- iterate over a sequence --> <?ztml if sequence-start ?> Print something here. <?ztml /if ?> <?ztml var foo ?> <!--Print a variable from the sequence itterated --> <?ztml /in ?> Yes I realise that XML has it's own constructs for doing things like this, BUT ... what I'm trying to do is create a migration path, and move it to something that starts to LOOK like XML, so that people using <?ztml var favorite-editor ?> can use it, and not have to worry about the troublesome side-effects of putting logic in comment code. Please no religious responses though :-) Chris -- | Christopher Petrilli | petrilli@amber.org