Re: online conversion support from xsd to rng?

[Štěpán Němec]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> Štěpán Němec writes:
>
>  > This is nonsense. XPath and friends are not bound to the external
>  > representation of the data in any way. They operate on the DOM tree. So
>  > as long as your XML conversion to sexp format is lossless (which it
>  > should be, of course), you lose nothing, only gain the advantages of
>  > saner format (i.e. sexp) both for humans and the machine -- you just
>  > need an XPath etc. implementation for your language.
>
> Sure.  But our language doesn't have a standard lossless format yet,
> it doesn't have an XPath implementation at all, and it's not clear to
> me why a lossless sexp format would be all that much more readable
> than XML (assuming an XML mode designed to be readable, which would
> probably be a bigger gain than XML-to-Lisp -- all XML modes I've seen
> have been designed for use by those who think XML is readable).
>
> I think you've got a lot of work ahead of you.

I don't enjoy lengthy unfocused discussions/parallel monologues as much
as you (seem to) do, so I'm not going to try to address all of what you
write (sorry). This time I just somehow couldn't resist and replied to
the nonsense Drew wrote, which in hindsight was probably a mistake.

If you're interested in working with XML in Emacs Lisp, have a look at
the relevant Emacs Wiki page:

http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/CategoryXML

Granted, the situation in Elisp is not nearly as good as in Scheme for
instance [1], but there is also an XPath implementation linked from
here:

http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/XmlParser

[1] Which is quite understandable, given the relative quality of Elisp
the language (for me personally, having Scheme in Emacs/Emacs on Scheme
would be no less than a redemption), the related "policies", and how
some of (X)Emacs developers spend the limited amount of time available,
right?

http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/xml.html

  Štěpán