A high priority for me is to not dilute the meaning of Oleg's
well-specified SXML by calling things "SXML" that are not SXML. Which is
why I started temporarily saying "SXML/xexp" in docs, and "xexp" in
identifiers.
I'm trying (well, I let this go to the back burner) to get the SXML
changed or to otherwise get Oleg's blessing.
I should take that up again with Oleg, before I consider renaming
anything and confusing the meaning of "SXML".
Neil V.
John Clements wrote on 03/03/2015 01:41 PM:
In trying to diagnose the recent issue with the sxml parsing libraries, I was
super-confused by your package’s use of the term ‘xexp’ to mean… well,
something very much like sxml. Given the name, I assumed it would instead be
something very much like x-expressions.
I’ve just taken a quick look at Oleg’s sxml specification, and I find, to my
mild disappointment, that it’s extremely well-written and precise, and I now
understand why you’d be reluctant to describe your format as being sxml. It’s
pretty darn close to SXML/1NF, though. It’s just those darn entities that are
going to be problematic.
Anyhow, in my opinion, naming your function
html->sxml
rather than “html->xexp” would reduce confusion; the documentation is already
quite clear about the minor differences between SXML/xexp and SXML.
Just my two cents, I suppose.
John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/54F60775.3000009%40neilvandyke.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
