On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, Gerhard Froehlich wrote: > >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.
And IMHO we havn't seen the real need for a programming language to describe a flowmap (and this thread *is* about flowmaps): Giacomo > "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] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
