Relax Lexical vs XML Lexical structure

[Doug Ransom <Doug.Ransom@pwrm.com>]

I think the very fact that relax uses a non-xml lexical structure, and the
obvious lexical clumsiness of XSLT (of which its xml infoset makes great
sense), identifies an opportunity to improve the lexical structure of XML.
Historically, I doubt XML was intended by its designers to represent
schemas, programming language, etc or really intended for users to spend
much time editing with an editor or looking at as a text file.  But we all
do these things.

Maybe XML 1.3 should acknowledge XML use is larger than imagined, and define
an alternative (preferred) lexical syntax.

For example

<K>
<A v="3" j="8" > 
<C/> 
</A> 
Cool
</K
could be more succiently serialized into a more human and machine readable
format.  Haskell and python are excellent examples of making code more
readible using
indentation instead of seperator tokens.    

K
   A   b=3   j=8
   C
"Cool"


or if you must have delimiters, 

(K (A   b=3    j=8 (C) =Cool))

This does mean that every application might need two parsers.