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

[Robert Barta]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 12:00:43AM +0200, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Sorry, that was not my intention. I just think that if we are going to 
> have CTM, then roundtriping between XTM and CTM should be possible.

Yeah.

This means two things:

  (a) roundtripping "on the surface, resemblance":

         XTM -> CTM -> XTM'

         with

         XTM and XTM' are "pretty similar"

         and defacto

         XTM  -> TMDM -> CXTM
         XTM' -> TMDM -> CXTM'

         and

         CXTM = CXTM'

  (b) roundtripping via TMDM ("conversion only")

         CTM -> TMDM -> CXTM   # this is implicit by the definitions

         XTM -> TMDM -> CTM'   # CTM' not easily comparable with XTM, no resemblance

Exporting AsTMa=, for instance, from TMDM would produce something, but
it is probably gibberish to most. This is a problem with AsTMa= (and
with LTM, I would assume), that both languages are _built for humans_
(and not for XML machines).

IOW, I am not sure whether you can have (a) AND (b).

Maybe this would be another requirement/issue. Thx for bringing this up.

\rho