[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 16:13, John Cowan wrote:
> Eric van der Vlist scripsit:
>
> > Yes, sure. The compact syntax fr Relax NG and the alternative syntax
> > (N3) for RDF are other good examples.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I don't know, for instance, if YAML could have been of any help for
> > these syntaxes:
> >
> > http://yaml.org/
>
> YAML is at the opposite extreme. RNG compact syntax and N3 are authoring
> syntaxes; YAML is a data-transfer syntax. XML is an attempt at a compromise
> and as such suboptimal for either task.
Yes, YAML turned out into a data-transfer syntax in its early days when
it was still discussed on sml-dev...
> What is new (except to Lispers) is the idea of a standardized intermediate
> syntax into which the surface syntaxes can be translated. We do not need
> one parser per vocabulary *per implementation*; it suffices to have a
> single standard translator from the specialized syntax to the general one.
Yes, that's already something...
To go further, I am not a Lisper myself (nobody's perfect), but do you
think that it would be possible to define basic constructs (maybe
borrowing from Lisp) which could be common to authoring syntaxes?
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
