[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 15:56, Sam Hunting wrote:
> >
> > BTW, have you noticed that yet another XML spec is defining a non XML
> > syntax?
> >
> > http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/ltm-1.3-prop.html
>
> See also:
>
> http://www.gooseworks.org/l1.html
>
> for the L1 syntax that represents topic map graphs.
>
> XML is great, I would never trash it, but it doesn't meet all
> requirements. I see the emergence of little languages developed by markup
> people as a very encouraging, grass roots sign.
Yes, sure. The compact syntax fr Relax NG and the alternative syntax
(N3) for RDF are other good examples.
On the one hand, that's fine and a good sign that syntax and meaning (or
data model or semantic depending on your culture) are separate, but on
the other hand, it's also meaning that users need to learn a syntax per
vocabulary and that developers need to develop a parser per vocabulary
and I am wondering if there are enough similarities between these non
XML syntaxes to define a kind of "common non XML" format...
I don't know, for instance, if YAML could have been of any help for
these syntaxes:
http://yaml.org/
Eric
--
Rendez-vous a Paris (Forum XML).
http://www.technoforum.fr/integ2002/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
