Balisage: The Markup Conference 2026 August 3-7, 2026 The original design of ixml did not focus on converting text files into particular XML document types, but converting them to some XML document type for further transformation. However, the other direction is possible: if you have a particular document type, you can design a textual notation for it. This paper treats a particular use case, in order to reveal some of the options and techniques available to designers of such a notation. Steven Pemberton Steven Pemberton is a researcher affiliated with CWI, Amsterdam. His research is in interaction, and how the underlying software architecture can support users. He co-designed the ABC programming language that formed the basis for Python and was one of the first handful of people on the open internet in Europe, when the CWI set it up in 1988. Involved with the Web from the beginning, he organised two workshops at the first Web Conference in 1994. For the best part of a decade he chaired the W3C HTML working group, and has co-authored many web standards, including HTML, XHTML, CSS, XForms and RDFa. He now chairs the W3C XForms and Invisible Markup groups. In 2022, ACM SIGCHI awarded him the Lifetime Practice Award. More details at https://www.cwi.nl/~steven Researcher CWI, Amsterdam steven.pemberton@cwi.nl http://cwi.nl/~steven/ © Steven Pemberton, 2026 Markup ixml Invisible Markup notations parsing XML design XForms

The ixml language ixml was originally designed with the principal aim of allowing non-marked-up textual documents to be treated as if they were XML documents with markup. This can be seen as part of a progression of abstractions being made on documents: originally there were individual (proprietary) documents, where each program that read them had to have have a special input routine for that format of data, with built-in knowledge of the underlying structure; introducing markup made the structure explicit, and enabled all data in all programs to be read by a single input routine; however, the marked-up data would often include markup to detail the presentation details; the introduction of style sheets added an abstraction layer that extracted the presentation into a separate file, which subsequently could be used for a whole class of similar documents; in the same way, ixml abstracts even the markup out of the documents into a separate file, similarly usable for a whole class of related documents. The original design of ixml was not to convert textual documents to any particular XML document types, but just to get a textual document into an initial XML form that could later be refined as necessary using existing XML tools. So if you had an existing XML document type, it was unlikely to be producable with ixml directly, but only by producing an intermediate document type with ixml, and transforming that to the target document type with other tools. However it is possible to work in the other direction, that is to say, if you have an existing XML document type, that doesn't have a particular flat textual equivalent already, you can use ixml to design a textual representation for it. People often seem to prefer authoring flat textual documents, because they can see and understand the structure unaided, and find the need to add markup to make it readable for computers a distraction. An example of this is Markdown md, which is a flat version of (X)HTML. Indeed there is an example of ixml being used to process Markdown in exactly this way adv. In an earlier ixml paper on Modularisation m12n, there was a hint of such an approach for XForms xf which exists as an XML language with no equivalent textual form; in that paper it was used to demonstrate the application of modularisation on a large example. In this paper we take this further, and examine the processes you have to go through to design a flat textual notation, and the options you have, and techniques you can use, using XForms as the target language.

The most important, and distinguishing factor of designing a notation for an existing XML document type is that the structure has already been specified: there are no decisions to be made on that front. As pointed out in the earlier example of defining ixml for markdown, the top level ixml rules for Markdown must be html, head, and body, since they have to match the final target structure. Similarly in the case of XForms, the overall structure of the rules has already been decided for us, which we can determine directly from the XForms schema, thus giving at the top level the ixml rules: model: (instance; bind; action; submission)*. -Content: Controls. -Controls: Core-Controls; group; switch; repeat. -Core-Controls: input; secret; textarea; output; upload; range; trigger; submit; select; select1. (as in the XForms specification, all rule names with an initial lower-case letter are used for actual elements that will occur in the output, and names with an initial capital for other rules). Of course, XForms wasn't designed to be a standalone language, but one embedded in other languages, so we need to specify a top-level structure in a host language, in this case XHTML: html: head, body. where head contains the models, and body contains the content. For instance: head: title, Style*, model+. body: Content.

There are two approaches to recognising input: either by position, or by adding extra characters to identify what we are dealing with. For instance, since the title is the first item in the head, we can just use positioning and require that the first line be the title of our XForm: title: ~[#a]+, nl. The rule for nl requires a newline, and allows extra optional trailing space: -nl: -#a, s?. The rule for s is to allow trailing space, but we will also use it where spacing is required, not just optional: -s: -[" "; #9; #a]+. For styling we use extra characters to identify the input, in this case the word "style". Although it would also be possible to allow embedded CSS, to keep it simple we will just use html link elements: Style: -"style", s, link. link: href, Style-type, Style-rel. @href: URL. @Style-type>type: +"text/css". @Style-rel>rel: +"stylesheet". -URL: [L;"0"-"9"; ":/@.~#?"]+. {A simple version for now} This requires a URL, and adds two other attributes to the output. Note how ixml renaming has been used; although this is not yet officially part of ixml, it is in the evolving future specification ixml2 and in all implementations. Also note the use of insertions to provide fixed content for some elements. So if a flat XForm begins: XForm Example style app.css we will get an output that starts: <html> <head> <title>XForm Example</title> <link href='app.css' type='text/css' rel='stylesheet'/>

Although this has been treated elsewhere adv, it is worth pointing out the best technique for dealing with white space, since it is an easy source of ambiguity. The first tip is: consume extraneous spaces after recognising a symbol. For instance: name: [L]+, s?. In that way, having recognised a name, the parser is positioned at the next meaningful (i.e., non-space) character, and doesn't have to try lots of different rules beginning with a space. It also means that extra whitespace at the end of the document is already dealt with. Secondly: recognise spaces as early as possible. Do this: id: -"#", name. -name: [L]+, s?. and not this: id: -"#", name, s?. -name: [L]+. and certainly never this: id: -"#", name, s?. -name: [L]+, s?. because in that case, if you had #abc followed by a space, the parser wouldn't know whether the space was a part of id or name, in other words, you would get an ambiguous parse.

This brings us to the sticky question of namespaces; sticky, because at the time of writing, the issue is not yet resolved in the working group. The XML design group did a clever thing when designing a notation for namespaces xmlns: they designed the namespace declarations to look like attributes, so that XML documents would be syntactically compatible with earlier software. Thus although namespace declarations look like attributes, they have a different semantic interpretation because they begin with the characters xmlns. It is this author's opinion that since ixml is just producing an XML document, it can use the same approach, by specifying that things that look like attributes should be interpreted as namespace declarations if the serialisation of the node starts with the letters xmlns. For implementations that produce textual output, this adds no extra processing; for implementations that go directly to an XML internal form, the namespace declarations have to be recognised and handled appropriately. Accepting this, we can redefine the html rule to include a namespace in this way: html: xhtml-ns, head, body. @xhtml-ns>xmlns: +"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml". which will give: <html xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>

We can use a similar approach to enclose the XForms controls in the body in an element that declares the namespace: body: Content. Content>group: xf-ns, Controls. @xf-ns>xmlns: +"http://www.w3.org/2002/xforms". -Controls: Control*. -Control: CoreControl; group; switch; repeat. -CoreControl: input; secret; textarea; output; upload; range; trigger; submit; select; select1. which will give: <body> <group xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2002/xforms'>

Most controls have a number of required parameters, and a number of optional ones. For instance, consider input: <input ref="person/@age"> <label>Age</label> </input> We can define this using positioning after a leading keyword: input person/@age "Age" like this: input: -"input", s, ref, label. @ref: XPath. label: -'"', ~['"'; #a]*, -'"', s?. XPath: [L; "0"-"9"; "/:@[]()+-*'><!=."]+, s?. {A simple version for now} There's one other useful attribute for several controls, and that is incremental="true" that specifies that the control activates for every character typed. Since incremental="false" is the default, we don't have to specify it, so you can write: input person/@age "Age" incremental by changing the rule for input to: input: -"input", s, ref, label, incremental?. @incremental: -"incremental", +"true", s?. so that we get: <input ref='person/@age' incremental='true'> <label>Age</label> </input>

Nearly all elements in XForms can have certain common attributes, in particular class for presentation purposes, and id for identification. <output class="error" id="out1" ref="message"> <label>Error</label> </input> One option would be to give these a keyword to identify them: output class:error id:out1 message "Error" but another would be to use the same notation as used in CSS css: output.error #out1 message "Error" like this: output: -"output", class?, id?, ref, label. @class: -".", name. @id: -"#", name. -name: [L], [L; "0"-"9"]+, s?. We can group them together as Common attributes: -Common: class?, id?. and use them everywhere: output: -"output", Common, ref, label.

Going back to the definition of the head: head: title, Style*, model+. we have to define the model. For instance: model: "model", s, id?, Model-content. -Model-content: (instance; bind; Action; submission)*. instance: -"data", s, id?, src. @src: URL. bind: -"properties", s, ref, Property+. -Property: type; constraint; relevant; required; readonly. @type: -"type:", s?, name. @constraint: -"constraint:", s?, Expression. -Expression: XPath. (we'll come back to Action and submission later), looking like this: model data people.xml properties person/@age type:integer constraint:.>0 As you can see, we are not obliged to use the same keywords in the input as the elements in the output, so in this case, for example, we have replaced the somewhat technical-sounding instance with the more general data, and bind with properties. To distinguish the various types of property in a bind, we have to use keywords like this, however another approach would be to give them each a separate definition: -Model-content: (instance; Bind; Action; submission)*. -Bind: Type; Constraint; Relevant; Required; Readonly. Type>bind: -"type", s, ref, s, type. @type: name. Constraint>bind: -"constraint", s, ref, constraint. @constraint: Expression. etc., giving: model data people.xml type person/@age integer constraint person/@age .>0 yielding: <model> <instance src='people.xml'/> <bind ref='person/@age' type='integer'/> <bind ref='person/@age' constraint='.>0'/> It is worth noting that nearly all XForms applications only have a single model, so an alternative approach is to define models so that in the simple (usual) case you don't have to declare a model at all, only when there is more than one: head: title, Style*, Models. -Models: Single-model; model+. -Single-model>model: Model-content. model: -"model", s, id?, Model-content. allowing in the simple case: XForms Example style app.css data people.xml type person/@age integer constraint person/@age .>0

Some controls can contain other content, and be nested, the simplest case being group: <group> ...controls... </group> So we have a design a syntax for this style of control. Options could include: group: ... :group or group ... /group or group{ ... }group or indeed group { ... } It is also worth noting that controls that are not in themselves principally containers, may nevertheless also contain content: <input ref="person/@age"> <label>Age</label> <dispatch name="CHANGED" targetid="m" ev:event="xforms-value-changed"/> </input> so it would be good if any syntax we choose be consistent with these cases. For instance: input person/@age "Age" { dispatch CHANGED m xforms-value-changed } and input person/@age "Age" { hint "An integer" } We can do this by declaring a block: -Block: -"{", s?, Controls, "}", s?. and then define group as: group: -"group", Common, ref?, label?, Block. which requires a block, and input: -"input", Common, ref, label, incremental?, Block? where it is optional. For the switch control, it could look like this: switch { case #closed trigger ">" { toggle open DOMActivate } case #open trigger "<" { toggle close DOMActivate } repeat item { output . } } Defined like this: switch: -"switch", Common, Cases. -Cases: -"{", s?, case+, -"}", s?. case: id, Controls.

XForms actions respond to asynchronous events that may occur. We have already seen a few above, such as toggle, and dispatch. These all have various attributes, plus optionally an event that they are responding to. For instance within a submission, a setvalue might look like this. <setvalue ref="message" ev:event="xforms-submit-error">Failed</setvalue> We could represent this directly as: setvalue message "Failed" xforms-submit-error However, setvalue can also calculate a value: <setvalue ref="count" value=".+1" ev:event="DOMActivate"/> Luckily these two cases are syntactically distinguishable, so we can define it as: setvalue: -"setvalue", s, ref, (string; value), event. @value: expression. @event>"ev:event": name. There is a grouping element for several actions, called action: <action ev:event="xforms-ready"> <setvalue ref="date" value="local-dateTime()"/> <dispatch name="TICK" targetid="clock"/> </action> We can treat that in the same way that we treated group earlier: action: -"action", s, event, ActionBlock. -ActionBlock: -"{", s?, Action*, -"}", s?. -Action: toggle; setvalue; dispatch; action. {etc} allowing: action xforms-ready { setvalue date local-dateTime() dispatch TICK clock } However, we are not confined to doing it this way. Another approach would express it as: xforms-ready? { setvalue date local-dateTime() dispatch TICK clock } defined by: action: event, -"?", s?, (Action; ActionBlock). which would also allow: DOMActivate? setvalue count .+1

The submission element is the most complex one in XForms for the simple reason that HTTP submission is complicated, and the element tries to cover all cases. Therefore we will only address a subset of its features here. A typical submission looks like this: <submission id="save" method="put" ref="instance('data')" resource="data.xml" replace="none"> <setvalue ref="message" ev:event="xforms-submit-error">Save failed</setvalue> <setvalue ref="message" ev:event="xforms-submit-done"/> </submission> which could be represented like this: submission #save put instance('data') data.xml replace:none { xforms-submit-error? setvalue message "Save failed" xforms-submit-done? setvalue message "" } However, this is such a common pattern, it might be worth enforcing the handling of the return events, something like this: submission #save put:instance('data') to:data.xml replace:none { FAILURE setvalue message "Save failed" SUCCESS setvalue message "" } along these lines: submission: -"submission", Common, s, Method, resource, replace?, SubBlock. -Method: PUT; GET; POST; DELETE; HEAD. -PUT: method-put, ref. -GET: method-get, ref. @method-put>method: -"put:", +"PUT". @method-get>method: -"get:", +"GET". etc., and then define a Submission Block to allow the success and failure parts in either order: -SubBlock: -"{", s?, (SUCCESS, FAILURE; FAILURE, SUCCESS), -"}", s?. SUCCESS>action: -"SUCCESS", s?, evSuccess, (Action; ActionBlock). @evSuccess>"ev:event": +"xforms-submit-done". FAILURE>action: -"FAILURE", s?, evFailure, (Action; ActionBlock). @evFailure>"ev:event": +"xforms-submit-error". giving an output like this: <submission id='save' method='PUT' ref='instance(&apos;data&apos;)' resource='data.xml' replace='none'> <action ev:event='xforms-submit-error'> <setvalue ref='message'>Save failed</setvalue> </action> <action ev:event='xforms-submit-done'> <setvalue ref='message'/> </action> </submission>

Although we can easily embed and recognise other languages such as CSS in our flat XForms, there is an irony that we can't embed raw XML. This is partly because we can't get the names of the elements into the output form (though see gixml for an approach), and partly because serialising "<" and ">" characters would appear as "&lt;" and "&gt;", even if all we did was copy the embedded XML from input to output.

This paper gives a taste of the option open to a format designer wanting to use ixml. What we have presented is not a complete or final design of a flat version of XForms, and there are still many details that need to be completed. For instance, it would be advantageous for the user if the structure of XPath is fully defined, so that syntax errors on XPath expressions are identified as early as possible. Designing a text notation for a given XML Document type is an interesting, even fun, exercise. While the overall structure of the document is already established, the designer has a lot of freedom in using keywords, extra characters, or positioning, to identify syntactic forms. While at first unexpected, there is also a lot of freedom in the choice of keywords and similar, that are not required to match the terminology used in the document type.

Steven Pemberton, Advanced Invisible XML (ixml) Tutorial, CWI, 2025, https://cwi.nl/~steven/ixml/advanced/ Håkon Wium Lie et al. (eds.), Cascading Style Sheets level 1, W3C, 1996, https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/ Steven Pemberton, Generalised Invisible Markup, Proc. Declarative Amsterdam, 2025, https://declarative.amsterdam/article?doi=da.2025.pemberton.generalised-invisible-markup Steven Pemberton (ed.), Invisible XML Specification, Invisible XML Organisation, 2022, https://invisiblexml.org/1.0/ Steven Pemberton (ed.), Invisible XML Specification Community Group Editorial Draft, Invisible XML Organisation, 2026, https://invisiblexml.org/current/ Steven Pemberton, Modular ixml, Proc. MarkupUK 2025, pp 6-20, https://markupuk.org/pdf/proceedings-2025-2.pdf John Gruber, Markdown, Daring Fireball, 2004, https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ Erik Bruchez et al. (eds.), XForms 2.0, W3C, 2026, https://www.w3.org/community/xformsusers/wiki/XForms_2.0 Tim Bray et al., Namespaces in XML 1.0, W3C, 2009, https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/