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

Re: Namespaces and DTDs

• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:08:21 -0500

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.
>
    LISP defines a serialization format for lists and atoms (s-expressions)
which employs '(' and ')' in an analogous fashion to XML being a
serialization format for trees.

    LISP also defines a set of rules by which lists are eval'd as functions
with arguments. Aside from syntactic issues, '<' and '>' could be used as
s-expression delimiters without significant change to the LISP interpreter
(aside from the parsing routine). In order to properly compare LISP with
XML, then, we would need to propose a set of rules whereby *x-expressions*
were evaluated.

    The closest we have today is XSL which is not currently a fair
comparison to LISP (e.g. try writing a compiler or word processor in XSL
:-))

Jonathan Borden
http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net



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...)

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespaces and DTDs
• Next by Date: RE: ModSAX: Proposed Core Features
• Previous by thread: Re: Namespaces and DTDs
• Next by thread: Re: Namespaces and DTDs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread