On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:45 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
>
>> With cdata we'd need to watch that no ]]> is in sweet lisp.
>
> Sweet-expressions don't use square brackets for anything.
>
Not quite. Neoteric defines "[ x ]" to mean exactly the same thing in
your base Li
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
> With cdata we'd need to watch that no ]]> is in sweet lisp.
Sweet-expressions don't use square brackets for anything.
> Cdata does not work for attribute values.
Sweet-expressions can't go in attribute values, because XML processors
convert all newlines to space
On May 9 2014, John Cowan wrote:
>David A. Wheeler scripsit:
>
>> This would mean that {* x *} would be interpreted *differently* by a
>> curly-infix reader (or a neoteric reader) compared to a sweet-expression
>> reader.
>
>I think that's a killer.
One could also argue that there are three tok
Sure CDATA could solve the problem. So could encoding as < .
With cdata we'd need to watch that no ]]> is in sweet lisp.
Cdata does not work for attribute values.
Many web devs need to be told what cdata actually is.
Most of this embedded code is rather short. The wrapping would - too -
defeat
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:00:58 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> In HTML, <* and *> Just Work, without a problem, at least if they are
> surrounded by whitespace.
Agreed. If I read the HTML5 spec on whatwg correctly,
"<*" MUST be passed through as text in HTML5:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/cur
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
> If you can limit yourself to XML (including XHTML) and SGML, using
> CDATA sections is almost certainly the best answer. The one caveat
> is that HTML doesn't support CDATA directly.
In HTML, <* and *> Just Work, without a problem, at least if they are
surrounded by
> David A. Wheeler scripsit:
> > This would mean that {* x *} would be interpreted *differently*
> > by a curly-infix reader (or a neoteric reader) compared to a
> > sweet-expression reader.
On Fri, 9 May 2014 13:37:04 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> I think that's a killer.
>
> Frankly, this is wha
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
> This would mean that {* x *} would be interpreted *differently*
> by a curly-infix reader (or a neoteric reader) compared to a sweet-expression
> reader.
I think that's a killer.
Frankly, this is what CDATA sections were made for. Wrap your Lisp
code in "" brackets
On Fri, 09 May 2014 13:58:50 +0200, "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
> continuing on alias tokens for collecting lists.
>
> Two aspects have made my feelings stronger that I'd actually like {* and
> *}: A) As noted before, users usually know how to key them in. B) My
> emacs will make it easy to skip ove
Hi all,
continuing on alias tokens for collecting lists.
Two aspects have made my feelings stronger that I'd actually like {* and
*}: A) As noted before, users usually know how to key them in. B) My
emacs will make it easy to skip over the block in most editing modes.
To get a feeling what
10 matches
Mail list logo
