Re: Re: is XML too hard?

I don't know lisp but this analogy seems to me not quite correct. For instance how about this XML:

<REALLYLONGNAME with_a_property='aaa'> some free form text <ANOTHERLON
+GNAME>foo</ANOTHERLONGNAME> text text</REALLYLONG
+NAME>
[download]

How would you translate this to lisp?

Comment on Re: Re: is XML too hard? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: is XML too hard? by diotalevi (Canon) on Mar 18, 2003 at 11:58 UTC
xml-dev s-expression + xml-dev lisp has some good return results. For this example visist http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200112/msg00438.html. Actual lisp programmers would know how to write the text bits as well. `(REALLYLONGNAME [with_a_property="aaa"] " some free form text " (ANOTHERLONGNAME "foo") " text text")` [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: Re: Re: is XML too hard? by zby (Vicar) on Mar 18, 2003 at 13:36 UTC
OK - I was fooled by the unquoted 'foo' in the first example.	[reply]
Re: is XML too hard? by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Mar 18, 2003 at 21:59 UTC
`(REALLYLONGNAME ((with_a_property "aaa")) ("some free form text" (ANOTHERLONGNAME () ("foo")) "t +ext text"))` [download] Abigail	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: is XML too hard? by zby (Vicar) on Mar 19, 2003 at 08:24 UTC
OK. This allready has been answered in fact and I withdraw all my pretensions. For my explanation - I was lured by the lack of quoting in your first example.	[reply]


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks