LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  November 2010

DATETIME November 2010

Subject:

Re: on targets and parsing (was Re: Interval sign: "/")

From:

Bruce D'Arcus <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:42:31 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (38 lines)

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Per Bothner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 10:55 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Per Bothner<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Probably most people benefiting from this spec wouldn't be typing and
>>> reading raw XML - but I don't know the target "market" that well.
>>
>> To me, the obvious target formats are:
>>
>> 1. HTML and XML
>> 2. RDF (in its various syntax forms; both XML and otherwise)
>> 3. JSON
>>
>> So the details of syntax can't trample of any of that (and thus, angle
>> brackets are out).
>
> My question was: While HTML and XML are obvious target formats,
> how often would people be writing HTML/XML *by hand*, and how often
> would people by reading the raw HTML/XML, rather than using browser?
>
> If that is rare¸then we shouldn't *automatically* rule out using
> '<' or '>'.  Especially in a rarely-used feature.  OTOK if it's
> a rarely-used feature then it would also be OK to use a less
> "natural" syntax if it avoids issues with reserved characters!

It's very common in my world to both edit and read raw HTML and XML,
and most people who work with HTML and XML (particularly on the
standards' end) would agree.

You'd in essence have to say that what you want to be ">" is really
"&gt;" (or maybe only for some formats), make accommodations for just
that in parsers, etc., etc.

So yes, IMHO it's completely unreasonable to consider it. :-)

Bruce

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager