xml:id RE: [sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question

[Lars Heuer]

Hi Bernard,

>> I think it's quite clear that XML is going to have to struggle
>> quite hard to compete with

>> [bernard : person = "Bernard Vatant"; "vatant, bernard"]

> This is where I disagree, and where I think Patrick got my point. The above has never
> seemed *simple* nor intuitive to me; neither to read, nor to write (too many [ : ; [ % @
> make me uneasy). To tell the truth I never even tried to learn to read LTM or AsTMa= so
[...]

It is not said that the CTM will contain the "[ : ; [" etc. things. If
you look at AsTMa= topic declarations you'll understand them (not
saying that these declaration make it into CTM).

       bernard (person)
       bn: Bernard Vatant
       bn @sort: vatant, bernard

IMO both syntaxes have their strengths and weaknesses. The task of the
CTM editors will be to marriage the strengths and eliminate the
weaknesses or to create a new language.

One point that not came up yet: IMO the CTM has the chance to lower
the barrier for people who are new to the theme "Topic Maps". The CTM
will be defined in terms of the TMDM and maybe contains some of them
in the syntax (like AsTMa= does). So a newbie does not have to think
in TMDM and XTM terms.

But I think this discussion misses the point. The question Gabriel
raised up was: "If you have the chance to create a syntax that is not
XTM / uses XML, which requirements this notation must meet?"
After the CTM editors have collected the requirements they can begin
to design such language and make a proposal.

So take your chance and name requirements. :)

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
http://semagia.com