[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Non XML syntaxes

• To: vdv@d... (Eric van der Vlist)
• Subject: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:23:42 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1034087398.4788.66.camel@ibook> from "Eric van der Vlist" at Oct 08, 2002 04:29:57 PM

Eric van der Vlist scripsit:

> To go further, I am not a Lisper myself (nobody's perfect), but do you
> think that it would be possible to define basic constructs (maybe
> borrowing from Lisp) which could be common to authoring syntaxes? 

I think standardization at that level is a mistake; for authoring convenience,
you want as much domain specificity as you can.  It's a lot easier to use
eqn than TeX to express mathematical text, e.g., simply because eqn is
soooo domain specific: no backslashes, no special tricks, just type it
like you read it.  Here are some samples from the original Kernighan/Cherry
paper (google for {eqn typesetting mathematics} to find it):

	f(t) = 2 pi int sin ( omega t )dt
	a+b over c+d+e = 1
	x sup 2 + y sup 2 = z sup 2
	{partial sup 2 f} over {partial x sup 2} = x sup 2 over a sup 2
		plus y sup 2 over b sup 2
	sum from i=0 to inf x sub i -> 0
	x dot under + x hat + y tilde + X hat + X dotdot = z + Z bar

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@r...  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders."
        --Hal Abelson

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Non XML syntaxes
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Non XML syntaxes
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Non XML syntaxes
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Syntax (was Re: heritage)
• Next by Date: Re: RE: Sky is falling again...
• Previous by thread: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• Next by thread: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread