Re: [xml-dev] XMON

Yes. That is to go back to the idea of NOTATION, which is that we need specialized plugins to parse specific embedded syntaxes for element. An XML processor would have standard, limited and evolving set of notations it just support: JSON, CSS, XPath and these would define syntax, XPath and DOM integration.

Programming language Rust has nice support for this: plugins is how it supports regex and DSLs for example, but the XSD WG firmly rejected a role for Notations when I raised it (IIRC one thought leader said 'without types you cannot do anything' as his reason not to support notations/plugins which I thought was a terrible lost opportunity, but that was the monolithic mania of XSD)

Schematron takes it up Notations a bit, by allowing different Query Language Binding (XPath, rdf, etc).

I think it is a Web design principle, actually that each layer needs to provide substition/augmentaion/selection of its parts (as the MIME media types allow). I wrote some material on this 18 years ago, http://xml.ascc.net/en/UTF-8/monolith.html with the nascent criticism that without webby 'organic plurality', XML would stagnate.

Regards

Rick

On 5 May 2017 10:58, "Stephen Cameron" <steve.cameron.62@gmail.com> wrote:

The namepace concept seems applicable, that an namespace can be used like a mimetype, to flag the need for specialised (non-XML) parsing of the content of an XML tag. with that namespace.

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote:
I tend to think that merely replacing one syntax with another is as big a waste of time as is possibly: and I think one of the central reasons for XMLs success was it prevented syntactic distraction by Mrs Palm and her five lovely daughters.

XML suffers from a lack of syntactic forms to signal underlying types. JSON is useless for status-classifying information (along XML' s content/attribute/comment/PI quartet) and for mixed content, of course. So let's combine them, retaining their syntax, taking the opportunity to rid XML of big things it doesn't need now (DTDs, encodings).

Regards
Rick

On 5 May 2017 06:51, "Tei" <oscar.vives@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 May 2017 at 08:37, Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote:
> XML was ascendant for 10 years and overhyped. The second 10 years of its
> life its has been descending to be merely used where it is appropriate,
> which is the best any technology should hope for. Classic hype cycle, I
> guess.
>
> But in order to thrive, I think it needs to grow and morph into something
> more. What is the low hanging fruit, that would give a great increase in
> functionality with the maximum ability to connect to existing technology by
> small shims?

I suggest removing these Less than and More than symbols. I never <3 them.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<note>
<to>Tove</to>
<from>Jani</from>
<heading>Reminder</heading>
<body>Don't forget me this weekend!</body>
</note>

=>

note
to [Tove] /to
from [Jani] /from
heading [Reminder] /heading
body [Don't forget me this weekend!] /body
/note

(yea, I removed the <?xml too, because between good gentlemen, we have
good defaults)

--
--
ℱin del ℳensaje.

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php