[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> You don't have an isomorphism yet, since the range
> of g (hence the domain of f) is only a subset of all
> S-expressions over atoms and strings. But that's fixable.
I knew I shouldn't have deleted the first part of my message.
I believe most folks are being sloppy. They don't really mean a 1:1
mapping, they mean: "why have XML syntax since we can easily map that
into s-expr's"
So I consider the problem solved. :)
> Then h(x) includes the element node "<bar a='b'>world</bar>"
> and the text node "!". There's no f :: S-Exp -> XML that
> can satisfy h(x) = h(f(g(x))), since g(x) is just the
> string 'hello'.
I was going for well-formed XML documents, not fragments.
The XML1.0 spec doesn't talk about fragments.
But if you really want all that stuff, then push things down a level,
defining top-level forms of element, node, and progn. :)
/r$
|
