On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:38:16PM +0200, Jan Hudec wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:30:20 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [XML inexact patching] > > > > In fact, I do think it's possible. But to be really useful [...]
> For XML the equivalence is well defined. Two XML documents are > equivalent if and only if they parse to the same tree. That's formally correct. But I was babbling about `useful� (which is a bit unfair, because it's fuzzy and I can take it to mean anything after the fact ;-) I was trying to express my observation that XML the data description language (as opposed to the text markup language) is often used in instances where wildly different-looking representations mean the same thing. This is not a problem per se (this happens with C as well ;-), but the tools which mangle those XML files have a sick tendency to output wildly different forms (as opposed, for example, to a programmer working on a C file: if the order of some declarations doesn't matter she won't touch that without a good reason, and then it is transporting some semantics of its own). Ugh. I don't know whether I've brought across my point. Regards -- tom�s
pgpFCSjmtGER6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
