• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Specifying formal semantics in XML languages
• From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>
• Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
• Importance: Normal

Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>
> Because XML parsers are available in every language built-in, while LISP
> and scheme parser are not ubiquitous, have less good
> internationalization,
> encourage rather than discourage the addition of processing, and does
> not
> have validation languages.

Whereas, i am not claiming that both SXML and Scheme were last words in
datuments manipulation i would recommend a view to

[http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/SXML.html]

and specially to

[http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/xml.html]

The thread about XML syntax for XPath begins to be a bit hot ;-)

I would note that in the Scheme approach, SXPath is a SXML structure can
be analised, modified, and even automatically generated in the way than a
hypotetical XPathX would but with the advantages of a full programming
environment (Scheme).


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Specifying formal semantics in XML languages
• Previous by thread: Re: Specifying formal semantics in XML languages
• Next by thread: xml syntax for xpath
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread