Subject: Re: Alternative *ML syntaxes [was: Re: StudlyCaps ]
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 18 Nov 2002 18:08:50 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Rob Warnock
| Perhaps in the case of HTML there are no conflicts of this type (I
| haven't checked thoroughly), but if one tried to generate output into
| somebody's arbitrary XML form, say, where they hadn't defined the DTD
| with that conflict in mind...

  I would strongly urge you to please find an actual conflict before even
  considering the problem.  Where there is a conflict, solve it locally.
  This does not need a global solution or even any problemizing because it
  happens extremely rarely and when it does, you can deal with it in the
  mapping.  This is, after all, an editing tool.  A little human effort to
  take care of problem that never happens is better than a lot of human
  effort to ensure a problem that never happens /could/ never happen.

| (Or does HTML and/or XML already require that the tag & attribute names
| be disjoint?)

   Attribute names are local to an element (please note the terminology),
   but element names are global.

| That's why I somewhat prefer \foo{...} to {foo ...}, since I tend to
| use curlies in writing plain text (e.g., sample C code), and almost
| never use "\". (MS users MMV.)

  The whole point here is to make the syntax more navigable with Emacs, not
  less so than *ML.

| TeX has shown that \entity and \func{...} can coexist, has it not?

  Yes, by attaching magic meaning to whitespace.  I want unescaped { and }
  to be markup, unconditionally.

  I believe we have different goals with the syntax.  Besides, I want to
  clean up the fantastically ugly mess that is TeX, too, not mimic it.

Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.