[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hello Bryan,
Bryan said:
What is meant by interpreter and by public consumption in this case?
If the project provides XSL-T to common presentation formats is that a
publically consumable interpreter? Probably not. What about if it
provides interfaces to consume the xml dialect for a specific
programming language? I would think that is probably yes, and if it is
yes then I think it is much more than 50.
Didier replies:
By interpreter I mean something (XSLT, Java, .net, DSSSL, Etc...) that will
transform the raw xml document into something:
- users can manipulate
- users can edit
- computer agent can process
The more we have element from the previous list, the more the language
bcomes useful. If we have only a language definition and no
tools/interpreter/library/renderer to make it useful, the less people will
use it. HTML became popular not because of its definition but because of
browsers.
I am not counting the generic DOM interface as a tool because it is an
insufficient incentive to use a particular language. For any other language
I can use Lex/Yacc to create something. It is a lot more efficient if the
compiler/interpreter is already done for me.
In economics we have the notion of "cost of transaction", in the XML world
let's consider a "cost of usage". If a particular language requires form me
days or weeks of work because something useful can be done and if I do not
have the assurance that other people are using it, then the "cost of usage"
is too high and the language will stay on the shelf. In, in contrast,
somebody provides a lot of interpretation tool (renderer, authoring tool,
etc.) the language has more chances to survive and grow.
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
http://didier-martin.com
|
