On Thursday 07 April 2005 16.08, David Allouche wrote: > On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 11:54 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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. > > [...] > > > Ugh. I don't know whether I've brought across my point. > > More specifically, XML is so semantically poor as to be almost > meaningless.
Which is true by definition, no? As it is for S-expressions, the sequences of alphanumeric characters starting with 'A', ... > For example, the semantics of element ordering and whitespace (to > a slightly lesser extent) are application-defined. If the ANSI C standard would just define the _syntax_ of valid C documents, we would probably say that the meaning of things like *a++[8](&b) is compiler-dependent ... Robin _______________________________________________ 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/
