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

Re: Rules & Grammars

• From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:38:14 +0800

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@i...>

>It might be a good idea to choose
>*one* of the rules-based designs and
>sanction it.  That will reduce the
>surface area.

I disagree. Premature standardization is bad. Little languages under control
are good.
At this stage we should be like UNIX in the 70s and 80s: lots of little
languages
being developed.  Then, *after* we know what is good, some Larry Wall-esque
committee can come along and make some coherent whole from the pieces, but
now we are a long way from coalescence, a long way from resolving the
problem space.

On the other hand, something like Dan B.'s Schemarama idea (provide a
rule-based execution framework into which little languages can be fitted)
and Lee Buck's Schema Extension Framework might be good ways to make sure
the little languages don't wither for lack of run-ability on different
platforms.

Perhaps all we need to standardize at the moment are (a couple of) useful
frameworks so that experimental and alternativc and niche and non-W3C
languages start life integrated into the general schema of things and not
orphaned.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Rules & Grammars
    • From: Miloslav Nic <nicmila@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Request for info about parser construction details.
• Next by Date: RE: best markup practices, different communities
• Previous by thread: RE: Rules & Grammars
• Next by thread: Re: Rules & Grammars
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread