giacomo wrote:
> Well, I have not made myself clear enough. In XML you can control
> verbosity by DTD/XSchemas/aggreed syntax. The ones controlling the
> Schemas define the verbosity. In programming language nothing
> prevents you choosing non-verbose names but in XML we control by
> Schema the names of elements and attributes.
Yes, but not the attributes (unless you want to extend your own schema
datatypes).
I mean, your schema defines the tag names, just like the language syntax
defines keywords.
Then, languages doesn't (normally) rule what variable names you can
choose, as well as you can't force attribute values (or validate them).
Sure, you might say that we also define the dynamic elements, but this
is like providing verbose API for your language: you might call
meaningful API and still do crappy programming.
Let me show you examples of both:
VerboseObject a = VerboseLibraryFactory.createVerboseObject();
VerboseValue b = a.getValue();
int c = b.doSomething();
which is just like
<map:generator type="a" class="my.own.component"/>
...
<map:generate type="a" src="/whatever"/>
I fail to see what XML validation adds to this picture.
> > I can tell you for sure, that both couldn't have used DSSSL because the
> > unknown syntax would have been too much of a gap for them.
>
> Hey, buddy. Why are you trying to convice me that XSLT isn't the right
> way to express program logic? I nor anybody else here ever stated to
> stick with XSLT. I don't understand your digression here. I've simply
> said that, using your words, that the "web tech population nowadays"
> understand HTML so there isn't a big step to understand XML and have a
> syntax that is "procedural" to express logic for flowmaps and I meant
> that Scheme isn't popular in the "web tech population nowadays" sdo I'm
> -1 using Scheme syntax. Point.
uh, uh, getting mad :)
Look, I don't like the Scheme syntax as much as you do: without a
specific editor, it's simply impossible write, so forget about that, I
would oppose it as well.
My point is: since the flowmaps will very likely require lots of code
and very few markup content (actually, should have *NONE*), why
shouldn't we use a code-oriented syntax for them?
I would replace 'code-oriented' syntax with JavaScript (since we have
parsers available) or any syntax that we can agree on (but i don't see
the need reinvent the wheel)
Now: would you -1 that as well?
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
