Re: three proposed additions to sxml

Hello!

        Thank you for the clarifications.

> One common use case for parsed entities is representing
> codepoints that are hard to type, like ⇒...
>
> If you are authoring SXML, then you have Scheme, so you can `(... ,rArr
> ...) for some suitable Scheme definition of rArr.  That's what I meant
> by "unquote".  Unquote also works well for arbitrary SXML subtrees, not
> just funny characters.

Indeed. Emacs has good input modes for entering such characters, for
example, either as &rArr or as \to or \rightarrow (as in TeX). The TeX
input mode is used all the time when writing Agda programs: Agda
encourages (ab)use of Unicode symbols and the users of Agda use
unicode for great fun and confusion.

> By "ways to specify specific characters in string literals", I was under
> the mistaken impression that Scheme had a standard way to get a
> character given its unicode name, and that there would be an escape
> syntax for that in string literals.
That's what I thought. It would've been very nice, as a complement
to \uxxxx notation that some systems may support.

> If you are parsing XML and you see a parsed internal entity reference,
> you almost always want to have it expand out to a sequence of characters
> -- as the SSAX parser does.
>
> Perhaps Neil has a different use case, or I am misunderstanding.

This is indeed the confusion I have with that part of Neil's
proposal. Not only the XML Recommendation says that character entities
should all be expanded; it seems to be the most common and desirable
thing. Neil, could you clarify?

        Cheers,
        Oleg



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech