[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Andrew Layman wrote:
> I wonder if we could produce something by sticking these ideas together,
> combining early middle-eastern writing patterns with this proposal,
> using XML written right-to-left when sending and left-to-right when
> returning, producing what I think would be "boustrophedonic XML" or
> "BXML". Or "LMXB"?
Oh, I think so. Good NWI. We may need some additional Unicode
characters, or at least fonts, however (sorry, I don't know Unicode
that well) because boustrophedon runs not only RTL and LTR, but also "up"
BTT and "down" TTB, and the stance of each character changes
with the direction of the writing; that requires 90, 180, and 270
degree rotations for each character (in the display).
-rcc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:36 PM
> To: Michael Kay
> Cc: Andrew Layman; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] XML Performance Improvements through
> Interdisciplinary Factor Assessment and Application
>
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Michael Kay wrote:
>
> > Why does everyone parse XML from left to right when you could do it
> just as
> > well from right to left?
>
> Indeed. This is just so much more Western imperialism. A new form of
> LMX gaining popularity in the middle east is based upon an alternate
> reference concrete syntax. An instance looks something like this
> (using roman for arabic characters in this 7-bit email message,
> displayed suitably for TTY); the english [start] and [end] are not
> part of the instance:
>
> [end]<xxx\>iii wvoiii oii ooivww owwv I
> <xx\>vvv<xx>www ooi iio<xxx>[start]
>
> It's being proposed for inclusion into XML 2.0.
>
> -rcc
>
> >
> > Michael Kay
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: Andrew Layman [mailto:andrewl@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: 06 April 2005 18:57
> > To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> > Subject: [xml-dev] XML Performance Improvements through
> Interdisciplinary
> > Factor Assessment and Application
> >
> >
> >
> > Several recent proposals have noted possibilities for improvement in
> XML.
> > Notable among these are "XML Binary Characterization"
> > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xbc-characterization-20050331/) and
> "REST,
> > SOAP, Speech Acts and the mustUnderstand model of SOA communications"
> > (http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200504/msg00000.html).
> >
> >
> >
> > Overlooked in this technical discussion is a paper that Don Box and I
> posted
> > late last Friday, "XML Performance Improvements through
> Interdisciplinary
> > Factor Assessment and Application". We commend it to your attention.
> We are
> > very proud of this research; it is an innovative approach to XML
> > performance. We would, of course, like to express proper appreciation
> for
> > the research directions and approaches implied by many contributors to
> > XML-Dev over the years, without whom we could not have taken this kind
> of
> > research to its present level. It is also timely - or, more exactly,
> > slightly past timely - in that proper consideration of this would have
> been
> > most appropriate on the day it was published.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://strongbrains.com/misc/XMLPerf20050401.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > So far, it has received a cautiously measured reaction:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://pluralsight.com/blogs/dbox/archive/2005/04/02/7172.aspx
> >
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrew and Don
> >
> > Redmond, Washington
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
|
