Steven Noels wrote:
&snip;
IMHO, simplicity has to do with predictability. XML grammars have this, scripting languages don't. While the use of a non-XML (scripting?) grammar for the site/flowmap might be clever, it might reduce the predictability. Too much magic for my poor brains. And even XML happens to be abused at times.
Scripting languages (and programming languages in general) are easy to create, all you need to do is define the grammar and tokens, and feed it all to something like JFlex/BYacc to create a parser. Perhaps it's easier said than done. Granted, I've done nothing with parser generators, but in the end I think it's the same.
Although you need to be careful about creating an ambiguous grammar, and I'm not sure how many parser/compiler people we have lurking on the lists.
Torsten mentioned his ideas about the sitemap as an abstract syntax tree, and I think there's quite a bit of merit there. I'm also on the context-free language kick since we're looking at them in my Automata and Theory of Computation class.
I'm going to gather my thoughts about the sitemap and CFL's and see what I come up with.
Tony
