Re: XML as a transition to s-expr

[Scott McKay <address@hidden>]

At 06:28 PM 12/18/01, Tony Kimball wrote:
>Quoth Scott McKay on Tuesday, 18 December:
>:
>: And as I already pointed out in another, this is ambiguous, since it does
>: not differentiate between element attributes and element bodies.
>
>Disagree.  It's quite clear what is an attribute, and
>what is content:  (defun tag1 (&key attr1 &rest body) ... )
>No ambiguity.
>
>Yes, *someone* has to parse it.  But that is always true.

If optional keyword attributes allowed, and keyword names are
themselves are allowed in a body (at least as the first element),
it's ambiguous.

Me, I prefer the unambiguous notation because it's more robust.
I assume this is why XML put attributes inside the <> with the
element name.