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

Re: Specifying formal semantics in XML languages

• To: juanrgonzaleza@c...
• Subject: Re: Specifying formal semantics in XML languages
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@a...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:49:08 +1000 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3183.217.124.69.240.1150975938.squirrel@w...>
• References: <3183.217.124.69.240.1150975938.squirrel@w...>
• User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2

juanrgonzaleza@c... said:
> 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).

They are good pages indeed.

The connection between S-expressions and XML is well understood. There
used to be a great publishing system called Interleaf in the 80s and 90s
which was LISP-based and did amazing SGML publishing: we used it for
military publishing and it was great (inserts in different size paper,
etc.) About 17 years ago, I co-wrote a custom version of LISP with a
built-in mini-SGML parser for document processing, called RISP, and a few
years later commented on com.text.sgml that LISP was workable (e.g. for
ISO DSSSL, which is a Scheme dialect.)

For a different view on LISP, also see my "LISP is better than XML, but
worse is better" at
http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2004/12/lisp_is_better_than_xml_but_wo.html
which includes a bit of a dummy-spit by me at the end.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • Re: Specifying formal semantics in XML languages
    • From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>

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