comp.text.xml Google Group

Unbinding nxml-mode

2012-05-21T10:12:55Z

The version of Emacs (23.3.1) shipped with Ubuntu 12.04 prematurely
binds xml-mode to nxml-mode, so all my .emacs settings for xml-mode
are ignored (psgml, xxml, etc). I don't know enough emacs-lisp to know
where this has been done, or how to undo it. How can I make Emacs go
back to honoring my .emacs file and stop it invoking nxml-mode

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-17T02:42:11Z

it was because the parser would accept both forms of syntax at the same
time (the original plan was for it to be a backwards-compatible
extension syntax, but I have since changed my mind on this point).

dropping the '/' means only one form of the syntax is supported.

this is not exactly how I imagined it working though.

PAYPAL - $1000 PAYMENT RECIEVED !!

2012-05-16T05:29:07Z

REFRESH THIS LINKS EACH TIME TO SEE AMAZING OFFERS
[link] [link] [link]
[link]

+++ Jesus Loves You +++
[link]

CHECK ALL THESE AMAZING HUGE DISCOUNTED PRODUCTS & BUY THEM WHAT YOU
LIKE !!! [link] [link]

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-15T21:11:50Z

Sorry, don't understand your explanation. Example:

just becomes

<list<item><item><item>>

What's the problem?

All the closing tags are just ">". Each one matches exactly the last
previous unclosed tag.

Well, this is the standard notation, not the new streamlined one.

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-15T06:34:35Z

I disagree here on both counts, in that I don't believe the '/' would be
superfluous (as I see it, such a change would cause syntactic ambiguity
unless the old syntax were removed entirely, which I doubt would be
beneficial), nor that the use of a different characters would be
particularly beneficial (more likely, people would see the different

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-15T04:24:31Z

in depends on how the parser works.

given the intention that the new syntax be a direct extension of the
existing syntax, rather than entirely replacing it, the '/' is still
needed in order to avoid the syntax becoming ambiguous (how do you
otherwise distinguish between an empty tag and the start of a list which

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-15T04:12:23Z

And you might want to use (), {} or [] instead of <>, to emphasize that
this is *not* XML.

--
Joe Kesselman,
[link]

{} ASCII Ribbon Campaign | "may'ron DaroQbe'chugh vaj bIrIQbej" --
/\ Stamp out HTML mail! | "Put down the squeezebox & nobody gets hurt."

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-14T11:49:47Z

In that case the slashes in the "/>" endmarks are probably superfluous.

--
Manuel Collado - [link]

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-12T20:18:36Z

fair enough.

yep.

probably because it makes a fairly versatile format for tree-structured
data.

strangely enough, I don't currently use it for data-binding, which I
guess is what many people use it for, rather most use has been in terms
of using the trees directly (with no intermediate structures or objects).

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-12T16:36:53Z

[...]

Yes. The use of XML-Data was first proposed by Microsoft, I seem to
remember, about half-way through the development phase of XML.

XML has been used for many applications far beyond what we expected.

[...]

I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to code *any* structured syntax
in something like Notepad. But all you would need to do is modify one of

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-12T03:41:58Z

actually, at one point there was an interpreter of mine itself based on
directly interpreting said ASTs in DOM form, and yes, it was slow...

I don't actually know just how slow it was, but I realize now that an
earlier Scheme interpreter of mine which was running "fast" in
comparison (of the naive "directly execute source expressions" variety),

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-12T03:20:50Z

... and, of course, on what tools you assume they'll want to use to do so.

--
Joe Kesselman,
[link]

{} ASCII Ribbon Campaign | "may'ron DaroQbe'chugh vaj bIrIQbej" --
/\ Stamp out HTML mail! | "Put down the squeezebox & nobody gets hurt."

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-12T01:27:29Z

Personally I would do a custom datastructure and give it an XML
serializer, or some other adapter layer that lets you view it in terms
of an XML infoset -- because trying to shove things into DOM form is
going to be much less memory-efficient and slower to access than a more
dedicated representation would be.

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-12T00:29:16Z

in the case of the compiler ASTs, a DOM-like system was used internally,
rather than raw structures.

in this case, I have basically been doing it this way (at least in one
branch of my stuff), since about 2004 (originally, the system was much
closer to DOM, but has diverged somewhat over the years, mostly to

Re: RFC: thoughts for a "streamlined" XML syntax variant...

2012-05-12T00:01:29Z

fair enough.

I mostly use it for things like compiler ASTs, network protocols, and
file-formats (generally structured-data).

currently used forms of XML are:
raw/plaintext XML;
as deflated plaintext XML;
as an in-use binary format (similar to an "improved" version of WBXML
with a few more features and density-improvements, with both being