Piotr Ba�?ski scripsit:
> Just wondering: since you're giving up canonical XML here anyway, would
> it not make sense to use e.g. LMNL, to address overlapping hierarchies
> -- or could they be handled differently (and still naturally) in the
> system you propose?
LMNL has its own limitation with respect to XML, which is that it does
not express hierarchy or containment at all, never mind overlapping
versions of it. LMNL expresses only potentially overlapping ranges over
flat content. In particular, the LMNL documents "[a}[b}this is a and
b{b]{a]" and "[b}[a}this is a and b{a]{b]" have the same data model, as
do versions with crossed a and b tags. Various methods have been explored
within the LMNL community to overcome this, but none have achieved consensus.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Thor Heyerdahl recounts his attempt to prove Rudyard Kipling's theory
that the mongoose first came to India on a raft from Polynesia.
--blurb for Rikki-Kon-Tiki-Tavi
