Hi all,<br>first of all, does anyone knows about the iso meeting in Leipzig? I may have missed it but I haven't seen a thing about it.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Lars Heuer
</b> <<a href="mailto:heuer@semagia.com">heuer@semagia.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi Steve,
<br><br>> I'm not sure why this should be a problem. Why can't the parser just<br>> report an error when it either<br><br>> 1) encounters an identifier that is identical to the name of an already<br>> defined template, or
<br><br>> 2) encounters a template definition whose name has already been used<br>> as an identifier?<br><br>It could, but IMO this is too expensive and it would be bad if<br>template names 'steal' topic identifiers. Remember, that templates can
<br>also be addressed by a QName which may steal possible topic<br>identifiers (subject identifiers).<br><br>All in all I don't like that feature for the following reasons:<br>- Template names steal possible topic identifiers (local identifiers
<br> *and* subject identifiers)<br>- Typos are not detected<br>- Users cannot determinate from a topic fragment if an occurrence is<br> created or a template is invoked:<br> - If the template was defined 80 lines before the topic fragment,
<br> the user has to scroll up an down)<br> - If someone sends a fragment to another person, that person cannot<br> see if a template is invoked or an occurrence is created<br> -> bad for debugging<br>- Bad language design: Explicit is better than implicit
</blockquote><div><br>Ok, and can we also list the dis-advantages of the pre-Montreal syntax ?<br>(apart from the fact that is looks rather messy)<br><br>Gabriel<br></div></div>