A few other subjective notes:
4) Perhaps one more feature would be to look at how hard it is to
decorate the description of the geometry with style hints - is style
attached as a kind of CSS or the like?
5) And one other thing is ( a personal thing ) is it easy to multiply
instance a geometry?
6) Finally, for me, I just like the cleanest tidiest smallest grammar
- one that let's me read it easily; that is terse... I know that the
conceptual notations are not tied to XML but I do like to see JSON
expressions or tidier expressions. I'm not a big fan of the XML
<markup> style notations because these days there is nothing that is
outside the markup zone. Markup meta-data today far overwhelms the
unmarked regions. Therefore it seems to make little sense to have the
heavier tags. You could just say something like "title { }" or
"title: " instead of <title>blah</title>.
7) I sure like having math operators in my grammar. CSS, even HTML for
me are sadly lacking and end up being very verbose. I know we all want
dirt simple parsers but I also really want some minimal abstraction.
This is why I like HAML and SASS - for terseness. It doesn't have to
be a fully procedural grammar with conditional expressions but the
fully dumb declarative grammars cause a lot of needless repetition
that doesn't very well capture the abstractions that are self-evident
to a human author.
Anyway... sorry to ramble on... I just do feel those are all empirical
tests which could be used to measure the utility of a new grammar
especially for AR which is now effectively making video-game concepts
mainstream... how well it maps the problem space and how easily humans
can understand it... aside from the more mundane expected details of
capturing position, orientation, velocity, meta-data, relationships
and other kinds of things that one might want to capture.
- me
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
