Re: Should nXML be included

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Jason Rumney wrote:
> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> > nXml is very good and I hope it will be included in Emacs. However
> > there are reasons to break it up. I think the parsing code somehow
> > should be broken up so that it can work for cases where the buffer is
> > divided into multiple major modes.
>
> I think what you really mean is that you want to use nxml-mode to edit
> non-xml files. Is that right? The problem I see with this is that the
> power of nxml-mode compared to psgml and sgml modes is that it deals
> with strict xml, and deals with it well. As soon as you start ripping
> out features to support non-XML documents, you're back to a general SGML
> mode and the compromises that brings.

Yes, you are right, I want to edit non-xml files.

But I think the power of nxml-mode can still be used. The parser 
provides to things: Validation and completion.

Validation of course loose most of its meanings, but not all. Completion 
can still be used. In fact that is what I do in nXhtml with nxhtml-mode 
+ mumamo-mode. To be able to make it more cleanly than currently the 
parser must be broken out.

> If you really want to create PHP in an XML file, you need to use CDATA
> blocks to tell the XML parser to ignore the invalid tags in that block.