<!NOTATION>

[John Cowan]

Matthew Sergeant (EML) wrote:

> [Information from notations] doesn't appear (to me) to be any use
> to parsers.

If by "parsers" you mean narrowly what the XML Rec calls "XML
processors, you are quite right.  It is meant for the lowest level
of XML applications, just above the parser proper.

> It can be of /some/ use to custom parser code, but only when
> that code has prior knowledge of these notation definitions. And that's a
> shame.

There has to be such knowledge somewhere.  The model of "tag data
of a given type with a magic string" has worked well for MIME;
one advantage of notations is that they allow anybody to standardize
a type, not just IANA.

> Perhaps we need some standard notations?

We do.  Lay on, Macduff.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan at ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)