[REBOL] Re: XML comments >> implications for R3
From: greg:schofield:iinet:au at: 10-Sep-2007 22:19
And sadly there is a lot of people that also consider it as a programming language
I very much agree, from the opposite point of view , that is via XML as a format.
Originally processor instructions were allowed in XML, but more or less discouraged.
As a web substitute for adhoc HTML scripts were introduced haphazardly. In my opinion
script has no place in a XML format, unless of course it is used to render scripts into
an editable and passive form.
Where REBOL may have an important and simplifying contribution is in taking scripts
out of XML altogether.
It depends very much on how a REBOL plugin might work in alien browsers. Whether REBOL
might become a rendering engine, or stylesheet processor of some kind.
I don't know if such a thing is even possible (well everything is possible, but money
and time might be excessive).
Script actions belong not in XML but in a stylesheet that describes how the XML will
be displayed and used.
It is that simple.
The stylesheet is a script, XML is a structural map. It should be used as a map, and
the script should identify where things might happen.
Consider simple hypertext jumps. At the moment a URL is placed within the XML as an button,
which is handy, but in terms of structure does a reference really need to be implanted,
is it good practice?
I don't think so, not when we have an established system of footnoting which places the
references typographically separate from the reference point.
It makes little difference to the web, but try printing it out while preserving the references
=96 they disappear!
Yet they could all be grouped traditionally within their own structure (hidden in web
use, but made visible when printing (perhaps at the bottom of the page, end of the section
or end of the document =96 but not disappearing as is the case now).
Put the code that attaches a reference to a web address in a stylesheet and the link
activation does exactly what a present href does, but the reference itself is elsewhere
=96 structurally separate.
Same with ActiveX type controls =96 they don't have to be, and make little sense in being
in a printed version, inserted directly into the XML itself they are a mess to be placed
in the rendered XML through a script makes more sense, at least to me.
REBOL might provide the means of keeping data format clean and separate from rendering
and for many web pages no XML is really required (though I believe any text, beyond a
sentence, or label, should be properly marked-up for typographical use at least =96 that
does not need a full XML document however)
Cleaning-up XML as a format may seem a modest enough objective, but separating data from
process is an important thing, data permanency may not be important to 9/10ths of the
web, but it is damn important for preserving literature in digital form =96 processing
instructions of any kind corrupt this potential.
Clean REBOL XML may be an approach that may meet with some niche interest, but I think
the implications are greater than that.
Plus with dialecting being such a strong part of REBOL, integrating minimal structural
markup is not such a big issue (it does not corrupt more efficient scripting methods
in normal REBOL).
Just some thoughts sorry for the long post.
--- Message Received ---
From: Carlos Lorenz <carlos.lorenz-gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:12:44 -0300
Subject: [REBOL] Re: XML comments >> implications for R3
For me, the bad side is when people see xml as something else than a
> "format", a way to interchange. unfortunately, xml has become a golden
> hammer. its an end-all buzz word for many of those un-skilled and
> non-programmer managers, who buy stuff from clueless salesmen who know
> that they have to push this "thing" their boss tells them to.
I agree with you. XML is in most CV/Resumes I have seen lately. It=B4s quite a
*MUST*. And sadly there is a lot of people that also consider it as a
programming language :(
Unidade Lorenz Ltda
(11) 4034 1971