Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Aug 7, 2009, at 6:17 PM, Michael Kay wrote: >> >>> A language for describing the syntax of another language? >> >> Despite the L in XML, syntax alone does not constitute a language. > > Agreed. I agree too, but saying that syntax alone does not constitute a language is not an explicit denial that XML is a language. If XML is not a language, would someone please explain why (or in what sense)? Or if XML is a language but it's just a bad idea to describe it that way in Wikipedia, could someone explain why THAT is? I believe we've agreed that XML is a subset of SGML. Is SGML not a language either? > >> It's only a language if there are words. XML doesn't define >> words. This is a formal language (syntax, specification, system, frog, whatever) we're talking about. The general "language" entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language ) in Wikipedia says "A language is a system for encoding and decoding information." That seems like a reasonable place to start. That same entry references an entry on "markup language" (which in turn describes XML as a "meta markup language"). The overall description of "markup language" (and the one of XML there) doesn't seem all that unreasonable either. If you want to start, in the XML entry, adopting highly restrictive definitions of concepts like "language" and other relevant terms so that, for example, something plainly called Extensible Markup *Language* isn't one according to these (unstated) definitions, while it plainly is according to stated Wikipedia definitions, I'm afraid you are apt to confuse an awful lot of people for whom you are supposed to be writing. > > I think it does define words: words like "<", "</", "<!--", and "<! > CDATA[", > and sentential forms like "<"...">", "<!--"..."-->", and so on. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
