> What I WANT as a result of current effort is a simple and not
> necessarily
> complete syntax that text editors and development tools will commonly
> support as an alternate view of XML documents.
But is the result an alternative view of XML syntax, or an alternative
syntax of the XML Infoset?
I think it's pretty much going to wind up being the latter, for better or
worse.
> What I DON'T WANT to see is this syntax being used to
> exchange or store
> data.
Can you enforce that constraint? <g>
BTW, I'm not arguing against your efforts; I'm pointing out what I see is a
consequence of having the results of those efforts widely adopted. And
you're not the only one working along such lines of reasoning.
If we get a plethora of interchangeable syntaxes, then they have a common
juncture to be coherent.
