[REBOL] Re: FAQ at REBOL Republic
From: rgaither:triad:rr at: 13-Apr-2001 12:47
> Just some devil's advocacy:
That makes for a healthy discussion! :-)
>> 1. Open standard (just the basic structure rules)
> Definitely needs the qualifier. What we'll have is some
> massive pot of different XML definitions, protocols,
> etc.. so tools will be able to trudge through the stuff but
> not understand what they're trudging through most of the
> time, unless taught to. At least it makes a whole lot more
> work for people! :-)
Yes it does need the qualifier. I see value in many of the
and "protocols" but that isn't for this discussion.
The key here is for "Me" not "Anyone" to be able to take
the same data and use whatever tool is available or is best
suited to accomplish some goal. That goal may be a desktop
interface, a web interface, an automated search procedure,
and so on. I know the "structure" so am not trudging through
it for each of these situations, but rather getting the value out
of describing my data independently of the tools operating on
>> 2. Language independent.
> Except when XML mutates into different languages. (-:
I really am talking about using XML in its "Descriptive"
capacity, not its myriad "Functional" layerings.
>> 3. Tool support in many languages and environments.
> The brunt seems to be with Java. Most everything else seems
> to me to be comparatively thin support. Does that jibe with
> what you see?
No, try this list.
Perl, Python, PHP, Java, Progress, Delphi, C++, and I suspect
many others I'm not familiar with.
>> 4. Better web integration options in many situations
>> If you use a Rebol script or dialect for a Rebol friendly
>> storage format then that is the only language that works
>> with it. That is quite a limitation to live with
> REBOL can spit out stuff that many other languages and tools
> grok, though.
Thanks for backing up my point! :-)
I like REBOL to "do" things but I can't see
its native output format as a big picture
Oak Ridge, NC - USA