Hi Porter,
Thanks for your reply.
> That way (depending on the complexity of the interface) a View layout
could
> be exported and transformed into Flash, HTML, or some other interface
> representation...
That could be interesting, but was not my intention.
> Reading XML in would ideally be handled in a very OO way. Unfortunately
(or
> fortunately) this seems to be the best way to manage things... You would
> end up with an object that represents your XML within REBOL. Elements
could
> be accessed using the standard REBOL path nomenclature
Gavin has provided code along these lines already. I actually wanted to
point out via the example the opposite. That if you had a VID layout in XML,
you would definitely not want to handle it in an OO way. You would want to
receive a VID block.
> For example:
>
> <person gender="male">
> <firstname>Porter</firstname>
> <lastname>Woodward</lastname>
> </person>
>
I'd like to see
[person male "Porter" "Woodward"]
or something else dialectical. Of course a grammar is implied here - but
should be part of the process.
> person: to-xml-object read %person.xml
>
> print person/firstname ==> Porter
> print person/gender ==> male
Gavin called it "xml-to-object". Have a look at:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/gavin.mckenzie/
I'd like to see the expressivity of XML brought up to Rebol not Rebol's
expressivity brought down to the level of XML.
But I appear to be seriously out-of-step with everyone else! :)
Brett.
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
