[sugar] Re: [Content] Some remarks about Crossmark specification

Ivan Krstić krstic
Wed Nov 1 03:20:09 EST 2006

Khiraly wrote:
> Or we can backslash it, as written in line 148.

You can't. Crossmark will never touch anything being passed into a
macro, either block or inline, though a macro will have the ability to
run a parser on some or all of what it was passed.

> But I would prefer to be costumizable the time format, for wider
> usage.

I'll think about this some more.

> I think the user should simply provide which language
> want to use. (for ex: fr, en, hu) And should be some built-in
> localization file pre-made for usage.

Hmm. I'll think about this, too. I agree in principle, but there's some
trickiness to how we go about it.

> So you think the common case would be, that people export the tables
> from an spreadsheet program?

A few people have been very vocal about this use case, but I'm not
completely convinced either.

> So the specification should not be written in stone, so we
> need to think about versioning, like xhtml 1.0, xhtml 1.1. (or svg for
> example).

Yes, we'll have to institute some form of versioning.

> How in the
> future can the language develope? Is it an open question or you have
> already resolved it?

It's certainly an open question. I've been trying to make sure that
Crossmark, as fully specified (including standard macros), is still very
compact. This means that, ideally, the core language and standard macros
won't /have/ to evolve much over time, as most of the domain-specific
functionality is left to macros.


Ivan Krsti? <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list