[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: intertwined specs
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jonathan Robie <Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:21:45 -0600
ASP is ugly when one first looks at it, not because it
doesn't work, but because the combinations of all of the
syntaxes plus quote counting and the awkwardness of
syntax-sensitive editors *fixing things* are maddening.
I consider it a bridge technology useful as other
technologies coalesce. XQuery is a result of that
The formal model is good for those who have to ensure that all of
the specs in total remain coherent. Perhaps the DEPH is being
left behind and that is a shift of target audience for XML. Being
a tool user, not a tool builder, I am not concerned but I can
understand that individuals who thrive on tool building might
be until they master the formal model. Then I suspect, like
some loathe BNF until they master it, it becomes the description
SGML works without LL(1) because the implementors hide that
from the end user. SGML is nicely flexible past that task.
As long as the specs keep the pain of the implementor from
the user, I'm not too concerned. I concur with Marcus that
we should not force them to master our solutions. One
odd and not really good side effect of HTML was to convince
a large group of people that they were programming. There
really are levels to this that most here, I'm sure, understand.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
At 03:52 PM 2/16/2001 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>As I sort my way through the XQuery draft, it has a
>way of looking like an ASP page with all of the
><% %> delimiters removed.
Yes, I think all of this is reasonable. Of course, many, perhaps most
XQuery queries will not look like an ASP page. Many will just use the
expression language without constructing literal XML.
>MSL: well, ok as long as these are formal
>proofs among interested parties as to the
>correctness of parts, no problem. If this
>enters the production systems, it is not
>something most will welcome outside the
>deepgeeks with the faster propellors. So,
>it will be an academic exercise similar to
>the early DSSSL with Scheme/LISP. Good
>to have for formal work; not something
>the production folks will want to work with
>unless it is made *very* friendly by tools.
You don't show your formalisms to your users, no more than you ask them to
read the assembly code.
>Keep in mind what someone made very clear
>very passionately in Vancouver when this
>SGML On The Web thing was a'bornin' and
>people had to agree to walk away from the
>advanced state of extant solid work:
>"It has to be simple." Jean Paoli- Microsoft
Well, yes, it has to be simple. But formal approaches, used well, make
things simpler. I wish SGML were LL(1), for instance, it would have made
the language much easier to implement. However, I wouldn't bother my users
with an explanation of what LL(1) means.