On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 12:33:02AM -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > I think anyone using XML or HTML seriously with Racket should probably at > least be told of the SXML family of tools. And warned about the > compatibility problems. > > Though not tell them *everywhere* XML&HTML in the docs. For example, I > figure a tutorial for Racket Web Server shouldn't distract readers with > that. > > As you know, :) there are some useful tools using SXML, and Oleg's SSAX > parser has some different properties than core Racket's XML parser. > > Complication: The incompatibility between SXML and core Racket's > representations of XML&HTML is an unfortunate accident of parallel > invention, and I think will tend to be confusing to new people. I once > tried to address the confusion in the `sxml-intro` documentation package, > "https://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/sxml-intro/";, and I'm unhappy with the > result. The details in my document say more than perhaps anyone will ever > want to know, and, "optics"-wise, make the situation look worse than it > actually is in practice. I think you could do a more graceful job of this.
On the contrary; this is the kind of information I need when choosing between the various representations. But in section 4. Appendix there is one bit of pervasive confusion: you present several differences, but do not make it clear which way the difference goes. When you say, for example, "The SXML keyword symbols may be lowercase", do you mean that SXML itseld allows this to be done to its keywords, or that it does not but that xexpr allows its SXML keywords to be lower case? > > (Someday, someone might undertake the large task of SXML-ifying all the many > non-SXML bits of Racket, and incidentally reunite Racket with the rest of > the Scheme community in that regard. I started, with one piece, but got > interrupted. "https://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/rws-html-template/" :) >From this, and from the general drift of your sxml-intro, I surmise that the intent is for Racket to become fully SXML compliant, and new software should be written for SXML, not xexpr, if at all possible. Is this correct, and is this Racket policy? If so, it should be stated explicitly in the sxml-intro. A statement like this (if not gainsaid by the opposite camp (if any)) would eliminate much of the confusion experienced by new users. It should of course also be said in the xexpr documentation. Finally, I seem to remember that one of the tools mentioned somewhere for handling xml turned out not to be findable. I don't know any more if it was mentioned in your document or elsewhere, but it might be worth checking that the ones you mention are still available. -- hendrik -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/20200627123304.p437hr3nykhfjs45%40topoi.pooq.com.
