James Clark scripsit:
> Round-tripping (compact -> xml -> compact) while preserving special syntax
> for RNG elements embedded in annotations would be tricky: you would have to
> figure out the maximal subtree that corresponded to a syntactically legal
> pattern (or name class?) and then use compact syntax for such subtrees,
> recursively handling annotations inside such subtrees.
*Perfect* round-tripping would require that, yes. (Note that XML > RNC > XML
already doesn't work correctly.) I would be content if conversion
from XML syntax to compact syntax didn't regenerate embedded RNG within
annotations; this is independent of *accepting* compact syntax (within
braces) within annotations.
> I think this would add significant complexity to an implementation and more
> importantly to the specification, without providing much practical benefit.
I think it will be very important for any kind of layered protocol over
RNG. I agree that ooRNG as written does not require this, but it does
not follow that there will never be such things: indeed, I think
layering of this sort is to be encouraged, not discouraged,
and failing to make it easy for compact-syntax authors to use it
will indeed be discouragement.
--
John Cowan <> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
