Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Bill la Forge wrote: > > From: len bullard <cbullard@h...> > >Darn. Maybe LISP was the right language after all and forty years > >of computer scientists just didn't "get it". > > Lisp and XML have a few things in common, like being easy to > determine if they are well formed. Frankly, I think XML will be > better in the long run because it can be validated against various > schema. As much as I resisted it in the early working groups for various reasons, I find myself agreeing with the position that it is good to have formal definitions for both wrll-formed and validated information. I had worked in that mode in the IDE/AS, IADS and GE systems, but the notion wasn't formally expressed. I like ISO 8879 DTDs mainly because they are for me, much easier to read and use to parse in my head. As I implement more with relational systems and use the tables to store the property sets of both schemata, properties of schemata as well as instances, I think I have more insight now into why people want multiple schema types even without the obvious extensions such as inheritance. nodes is nodes is nodes. len xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
