On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Blanchard, Todd wrote:
> I certainly hope we're not going to see an xmlization of a perfectly good
> syntax. I mean, which would you rather read
>
> <fact>
> <type>recordType</type>
> <field1>Some Value</field1>
> <field2>Other Value</field2>
> </fact>
>
> or
>
> (recordType (field1 "Some Value")(field2 "Other Value"))
>
> Scale it up in volume and the verbosity makes spotting patterns much
> harder.
>
> Just say no to markup languages. Its gone more than far enough.
>
Ok, if you don't XMLize Jess, some other guy will do. You've been
given the unique opportunity of preventing RML from getting
more complex. I agree that Lisp syntax is far superior to
XML, but from all the possible XML syntaxes some are more LISP-ish
than others.
It's important from my point of view to achieve this sort of things:
- the less numbers of keys as possible
- the more lists as possible (lists of fields, lists of facts).
- the less nestings as possible ( CLIPS is not LISP).
A Lisp oriented and swallow XML marking.
I'll apreciate any effort into this direction.
---
Regards/Saludos
Manolo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the
list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
