>From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >giacomo wrote: > >> Well, I have not made myself clear enough. In XML you can control >> verbosity by DTD/XSchemas/aggreed syntax. The ones controlling the >> Schemas define the verbosity. In programming language nothing >> prevents you choosing non-verbose names but in XML we control by >> Schema the names of elements and attributes. > >Yes, but not the attributes (unless you want to extend your own schema >datatypes). > >I mean, your schema defines the tag names, just like the language syntax >defines keywords. > >Then, languages doesn't (normally) rule what variable names you can >choose, as well as you can't force attribute values (or validate them). > >Sure, you might say that we also define the dynamic elements, but this >is like providing verbose API for your language: you might call >meaningful API and still do crappy programming. > >Let me show you examples of both: > > VerboseObject a = VerboseLibraryFactory.createVerboseObject(); > VerboseValue b = a.getValue(); > int c = b.doSomething(); > >which is just like > > <map:generator type="a" class="my.own.component"/> > ... > <map:generate type="a" src="/whatever"/> > >I fail to see what XML validation adds to this picture. > >> > I can tell you for sure, that both couldn't have used DSSSL because the >> > unknown syntax would have been too much of a gap for them. >> >> Hey, buddy. Why are you trying to convice me that XSLT isn't the right >> way to express program logic? I nor anybody else here ever stated to >> stick with XSLT. I don't understand your digression here. I've simply >> said that, using your words, that the "web tech population nowadays" >> understand HTML so there isn't a big step to understand XML and have a >> syntax that is "procedural" to express logic for flowmaps and I meant >> that Scheme isn't popular in the "web tech population nowadays" sdo I'm >> -1 using Scheme syntax. Point. > >uh, uh, getting mad :) > >Look, I don't like the Scheme syntax as much as you do: without a >specific editor, it's simply impossible write, so forget about that, I >would oppose it as well. > >My point is: since the flowmaps will very likely require lots of code >and very few markup content (actually, should have *NONE*), why >shouldn't we use a code-oriented syntax for them? > >I would replace 'code-oriented' syntax with JavaScript (since we have >parsers available) or any syntax that we can agree on (but i don't see >the need reinvent the wheel)
IMHO don't use XML to create a programming language. "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is the universal format for structured documents and data on the Web." -- W3C XML Web site, 2000-07-06 Exactly for _documents_ and in further sense for data! A little story: For the AvalonDB we started to define our own SQL in XML, because we thought that writing a full fledged SQL Parser is really hard. But what we done was to re-inventing the wheel. We had to make decision about the syntax, semantic and s.o. But the syntax for SQL is there. I don't know, since 20 years? Then I started to write my own SQL Parser with JavaCC. And wow one week later most of the parser was implemented. Writing a own Syntax in BNF Grammer or whatever isn't that hard! Parsing the "where" condition was easier to implement with JavaCC as in XML!! This JavaScript idea I like. There are good parser around and look at: http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/projects/bsf Do not mix up with BSE ;-)) my 2 Cents Gerhard ----------------------------------------------------- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. ----------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
