вс, 20 янв. 2019 г. в 23:48, Adam Chlipala <[email protected]>: > > The truth is, there has been minimal use so far of the built-in XML > types to build other kinds of XML than HTML, as far as I know. And, at > the moment, I can't think of any workaround for tag names that clash > with HTML tag names, without changing the compiler. Suggestions are > welcome! > > It wouldn't be too big of a deal to build a separate FFI-based solution > for your particular XML domain, I bet, not reusing the built-in XML support. >
In general, yes, it is probably much more productive to use a full-blown XML library via FFI. For this use case I have made a hacky workaround, though. > On 1/10/19 2:56 PM, Artyom Shalkhakov wrote: > > Hello list, > > > > I am working on this library [1] for producing Atom feeds. > > > > The idea is to produce XML similarly to the way HTML is produced with > > Ur/Web. It is mostly going very nicely. > > > > However, in the case of [entry] and [email] there exists a clash > > between the new tags and the existing tags defined in Basis and built > > into the compiler. > > > > Questions: > > > > 1. Is it a good idea to produce XML like this? (So far I like it.) > > 2. If this approach is okay, then how to overcome this issue? I would > > except shadowing of tags to work the same way as shadowing of bindings. > > > _______________________________________________ > Ur mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur -- Cheers, Artyom Shalkhakov _______________________________________________ Ur mailing list [email protected] http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
