From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#41320: sxml attributes of some elements are in reverse order Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 13:02:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20200516110207.GC30977@tuxteam.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+xNpyl7Qekk2NvDX" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="1735"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: 41320@debbugs.gnu.org To: Jan Synacek Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 16 13:03:09 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jZuax-0000JM-G3 for guile-bugs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:03:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59204 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZuaw-0000CO-BY for guile-bugs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 07:03:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39390) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZuas-0000CD-Gy for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 07:03:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:56556) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZuas-0001pD-83 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 07:03:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jZuas-0007Jp-4i for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 07:03:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 11:03:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41320 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile Original-Received: via spool by 41320-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B41320.158962693228024 (code B ref 41320); Sat, 16 May 2020 11:03:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 41320) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 May 2020 11:02:12 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39869 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jZua4-0007Hw-9T for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 07:02:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]:48689) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jZua0-0007Hh-Lu for 41320@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 07:02:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxteam.de; s=mail; h=From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:Date; bh=8E8Co9e9DZ0nsLIzHd0etQ2aSi/phYaFqFyTc+dvTCg=; b=Ls8hcuUTnTgO3ltljz94cg34nwlJ8Oy9fmr36AqBjXqlpgpZSpkocHV/MA64zkBK3wzrQ4I9tLO0xRqdMPeUqhlVy2P4ho7SbmxxBCUXJyHLnu7aK5MaXdnyXWyu7vxodP2g4UlBEfxWg06bWLGMrlJBdYCNVSh8iO9x7hBPgAszMMCCKVKdt3AedPIJEeLmgO0kL//m8NkdWk4dMHVzXFwzTEmKr5oWSKDf6wzYjVAepY88ukkzP3irKSgoex2K6DJC0ztBydxavv9mMz5I741RXy8CDL5vL6MY3gl3twW1UcNrpWam9Pzj5KDtW+rwF1ycfUc9uTNreI2wXiN0xg==; Original-Received: from tomas by mail.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jZuZz-0001s6-A9; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:02:07 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-guile" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:9759 Archived-At: --+xNpyl7Qekk2NvDX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 12:29:54PM +0200, Jan Synacek wrote: > Consider the following code snippet running on Guile-3.0.2: [...] > [...] > (event (@ (number 2) (name KeyPress))=20 > Attributes 'number' and 'name' are in reverse compared to the original > xml. On the other hand, 'type' and 'name' of the 'field' element are in > correct order. According to the XML spec, attribute order is irrelevant [1] "Note that the order of attribute specifications in a start-tag or empty-element tag is not significant." Now one could argue that we might want to be stricter in the XML->SXML processor, which would be fine, but OTOH there's a price to pay. The question is whether we want to go there -- just imagine another XML processor in the middle changing attribute order. It would be spec compliant. What now? Tough question. Cheers [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-starttags -- t --+xNpyl7Qekk2NvDX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAl6/yC8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kagfACeND3LyLuUENJ15fXDBMUytOoU GjkAnAjdT0RqI6t8L62orni17WQ5EmZU =F39l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+xNpyl7Qekk2NvDX--