• To: vdv@d... (Eric van der Vlist)
• Subject: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:13:35 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1034085907.4691.51.camel@ibook> from "Eric van der Vlist" at Oct 08, 2002 04:05:07 PM

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.

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.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@r...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Non XML syntaxes
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: Non XML syntaxes
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Non XML syntaxes
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Next by Date: Re: <!-- -- -->
• Previous by thread: Non XML syntaxes
• Next by thread: Re: Non XML syntaxes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread