* Ralph Giles:
> On 26 March 2011 04:46, Florian Weimer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity, does EBML allow generation of type definitions for
>> ordinary programing languages?
>
> I'm not sure what this means, but no one else has replied, so:
Okay, let me clarify. DTDs, XML Schema and Relax NG are too general
to admit synthesizing type information for most programming languages.
For instance, if you have got this in a DTD:
<!ELEMENT PAGE (TITLE, AUTHOR,
ADDLIST*, ADDFOOTER*, SHIP*,
(((BODY | LEAD)?, (SECTION | FAQL)*)
| (SECTION | FAQL)+),
REVISIONS?)>
then it will be really difficult to generate a useful type from that.
Even for an ML-like language, the lack of at type name for thinks like
BODY | LEAD makes that difficult. There is even more nastiness, such
as non-determinist content models, but the naming problem is the first
obstacle.
But this is getting off-topic. (Coincidentally, I'm looking for a
schema language which maps nicely to the common core of most static
type systems, that's why I asked.)
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
