I thought it was a good article too. My only beef is that the guy is
unhappy with XML as a tree representation because it "involves a lot of
typing".. :-)
It's pretty much trivial to xform between sexp & XML in comparison to
say.. xforming between C/java and either sexp/XML. Concept of
attributes would be a little messy I guess, but a lot of people don't
like those for very reasonable reasons anyways. Namespaces are pretty
directly transportable too.
The software I'm working on these days has probably 4-5 XML
'languages'.... if there was a good sexp <--> XML both-way conversion
standard which had an implementation I could play with, it might make
our environment a little friendlier for people who either like the sexp
syntax, or hate 'lots of typing'. :-) It might also provide a gateway
back towards lispitude. :)
n a wrote:
thanks, interesting article. I do wish people would stop using that
esr quote in every intro-to-lisp article ever made though, the guy's
an idiot.
Nick
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how
to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
