[KinoSearch] FieldSpec/InvIndexSpec API

[Mike Wexler]

I think all of you are missing something. What Marvin is proposing is 
perfectly valid XML.
It is standard for an XML appliation to define what elements and 
attributes it supports, having no attributes is not illegal.
The other two aren't quite as standard, but they don't make the 
resulting XML any less valid or any more difficult to read or understand.
BTW, by "No escapes" to you mean not entities?

Aaron Crane wrote:
> Tony Bowden writes:
>   
>>> Marvin Humphrey writes:
>>>       
>>>> I think if we limit ourselves to a strict subset of XML, writing our own
>>>> C parser will be simple enough.  Here's a starting set of constraints:
>>>>
>>>>  * No attributes.
>>>>  * ASCII-only.
>>>>  * No escapes.
>>>>         
>> Perhaps I've missed this in earlier discussion, but if you're not actually
>> going to use XML, and are going to roll your own parser, why use an
>> XML-like format? On top of the confusion from users who think that it is
>> actually XML, wouldn't it be easier to create a format that's both easier
>> for a human to read and easier to parse? (e.g. something more YAML-like)
>>     
>
> +1 on what Tony says.  One of the few really good things about XML is
> that it's the same everywhere.  It doesn't seem a win to invent a new
> thing that's almost the same as XML, but different enough that you can't
> rely on your existing knowledge of what constitutes XML.
>
> I think that either using an off-the-shelf XML parser or inventing a non-XML
> syntax would be reasonable approaches.  For that matter, reusing someone
> else's wheel (maybe YAML) seems like it would also work.  But building a
> parser for an almost-XML syntax does strike me as a bad move.
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.rectangular.com/pipermail/kinosearch/attachments/20061120/c3f1c1b9/attachment.htm