> 1 - XSLT > > Since the syntax is XML (like the extensions tags) and XPath (vaguely > similar to template syntax, although it's XML that calls XPath, the > opposite of what we have) It would be reasonably consistent with > current > syntax. It also should also already be fairly well locked down, and > the > interface seems fairly clear - present template parameters as > stylesheet > parameters, and other magic words as an input document. We may just > need > a few simplifications to make it easier to use. > XSLT itself is a way too much locked down - even simple things like substrings manipulation and loops aren't so easy to perform. Well, maybe I am too stupid for XSLT but from my experience bringing tag syntax in programming language make the code poorly readable and bloated. I've used XSLT for just one of my projects.
> 2- lisp/scheme > > Should be easy to write a parser for if needed, since the grammer is so > simple, > and it should be relatively simple to lock down or extend as needed. > Deeply nested braces of lisp remind me of current MediaWiki parser. > Of course, those are both a bit more esoteric than your recommendations. > Perl is nice for getting useful results from short code, if we're not > bothered by one parser with no grammer specification calling another > one. Tcl may > be a reasonable compromise; a less esoteric, imperative language which > is often > used as an extension language. > Lua was highly valued here at computer lab, also Ocaml (not sure of proper spelling). Dmitriy _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
