[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
<reflexion type="phylosophical" practical="no">
There is something fascinating in allowing more flexibility within the
angle brackets: it gives you (especially if you don't write using our
occidental alphabet) more possibilities to define "creative" XML
applications which would put information in the tag themselves.
It kind of blurs the difference between what's between and outside the
angle brackets and you could more easily include structured or
unstructured information within tag names.
I have been thinking for a while (as an exercise of style) to define an
application using XML inside down. For instance, instead of writing:
<character>
<name>
Snoopy
</name>
</character>
I could write:
<Snoopy>name/character</Snoopy>
Or even
<Snoopy:name>character</Snoopy:name>
Again, it's just an exercise of style (at least right now ;=) ) but I
think it could be fun to see the consequences of such strange but yet
well formed vocabularies on the other specs such as SAX, XSLT/XPath,
XPointer, W3C XML Schema and RDF.
What stucks me even though it's probably not the motivation is that this
WG is making this easier, (unfortunately especially if you are using
other alphabets than the one I am using).
</reflexion>
Eric
--
See you in Orlando for XML 2001.
http://www.xmlconference.net/xmlusa/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
