Conal Tuohy wrote:
Stefano wrote:
Conal Tuohy wrote:
It's [XML sitemap syntax] also potentially useful for validation.
Nop, wrong. There is no XMl validation language that can tell you if the sitemap is "valid" from a cocoon-logic point of view (for example there is no "class file name" datatype, or no way for the XML validator to know that that class is inside the classloader).
You can validate the "xml structure" but the semantics of that will have to be validated by special code anyway.
There will always be some semantics that are out of reach of validation. I believe the Cocoon sitemap language is already Turing-complete so it actually would be theoretically impossible to validate it from a cocoon-logic point of view (even just considering the pipelines and leaving aside the component declarations etc).
without java and flow, the sitemap is far from being turing complete.
But some level of validation might still be useful (check that pipelines have generators and serializers, etc). But I'm speaking hypothetically because I have never done it. :-)
I disagree. XML-schema like validation for the sitemap is just misleading because it gives you a false sense of solidity that you just can't understand from that point of view.
The fact that XML is a common syntax means that there will
always be new
things you can with it.
FS. This was the argument in the past and it never happened.
Personally, I like it as XML. :-)
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like it... but many times it felt just too verbose for the task... so it would be kinda cool to have the ability to have two syntaxes.
I agree. Or even several syntaxes.
I have used the graphic editor Dia to
generate XML code and I'm sure it could be used as a graphical pipeline
editor for Cocoon. I remember seeing some graphical notation that I
think you invented, Stephano.
Stefano, please.
Did you have a system for using it as
actual source code?
Nope.
-- Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
