On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
It strikes me how, in early 2006, people are still thinking that
another XML domain-specific language is the way to go. We are all
learning the hard way how the XML verbiage has been useless and, to
some extents, detrimental: from Jelly onwards
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On 1/1/06, Michael Wechner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not that much interested into yet another DSL expressed in XML,
and I don't feel alone at all. Actually I'd much rather drift towards
a programmatic pipeline API.
what do you mean by a programmatic pipeline
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On 12/30/05, Sylvain Wallez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
The W3C recently set up an XML Processing working group[1] whose
primary goal is to define an XML processing language (i.e. pipelines).
Wow, innovation at work! :-)
AFAIU the group's direction
On 1/1/06, Michael Wechner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not that much interested into yet another DSL expressed in XML,
and I don't feel alone at all. Actually I'd much rather drift towards
a programmatic pipeline API.
what do you mean by a programmatic pipeline API?
Uhm, part of the
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On 12/30/05, Sylvain Wallez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
The W3C recently set up an XML Processing working group[1] whose
primary goal is to define an XML processing language (i.e. pipelines).
...
My impression is that what this WG will end up defining yet
Hi all,
The W3C recently set up an XML Processing working group[1] whose
primary goal is to define an XML processing language (i.e. pipelines).
AFAIU the group's direction is not to reinvent something new, but to
standardize what already exists, taking as inputs two pipeline languages
that
On 12/30/05, Sylvain Wallez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
The W3C recently set up an XML Processing working group[1] whose
primary goal is to define an XML processing language (i.e. pipelines).
Wow, innovation at work! :-)
AFAIU the group's direction is not to reinvent something new, but
