Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

markup datatype

 [1/6] from: bry:itnisk at: 3-Nov-2003 10:22


http://www.xmldatabases.org/WK/blog/663?t=item a wishlist by Kimbro Staken about what he wants a language to be able to do with xml. Rebol is in some ways pretty close to this. In other ways very far off.

 [2/6] from: brett:codeconscious at: 3-Nov-2003 22:19


> http://www.xmldatabases.org/WK/blog/663?t=item > > a wishlist by Kimbro Staken about what he wants a language to be able to > do with xml. Rebol is in some ways pretty close to this.
Yes.
> In other ways very far off.
This particular example does not seem too far off for REBOL at all :^)
>From what I see his example treats the xml strings as a tree of nodes and
attibutes with fairly simple operations applied to the trees. I would expect it to be feasible and not too difficult to program as a dialect in REBOL. The language part would be the easy bit for REBOL, the choice of underlying representation supporting flexible and fast operations is the the trickier part - had already been thinking about it. ;-) Regards, Brett

 [3/6] from: bry::itnisk::com at: 3-Nov-2003 12:45


>> In other ways very far off. >This particular example does not seem too far off for REBOL at all :^)
The thing that made me say far off was the xpath usage against the xml inside the variables.

 [4/6] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 3-Nov-2003 9:05


Hi Brett, BH> From what I see his example treats the xml strings as a tree of nodes and BH> attibutes with fairly simple operations applied to the trees. I would expect BH> it to be feasible and not too difficult to program as a dialect in REBOL. BH> The language part would be the easy bit for REBOL, the choice of underlying BH> representation supporting flexible and fast operations is the the trickier BH> part - had already been thinking about it. ;-) I agree. The issue I see is one of completeness. It's easy to look at a simple example and have it make sense, but when you start looking at real, complex, documents and the whole depth and breadth of XML and such, you could end up with a real mess from a specification point of view. The first steps shouldn't be hard though. Just deal with basic, well-formed, XML and ignore the rest. :) -- Gregg

 [5/6] from: AJMartin:orcon at: 24-Dec-2003 22:44


Bryan wrote:
> http://www.xmldatabases.org/WK/blog/663?t=item > > a wishlist by Kimbro Staken about what he wants a language to be able to
do with xml. Rebol is in some ways pretty close to this. In other ways very far off. In some ways, .NET is like this. :) XML is to become a firstclass datatype in .NET 2. Andrew J Martin Speaking in tongues and performing miracles. ICQ: 26227169 http://www.rebol.it/Valley/ http://valley.orcon.net.nz/ http://Valley.150m.com/

 [6/6] from: bry:itnisk at: 4-Nov-2003 10:40


>In some ways, .NET is like this. :) XML is to become a firstclass
datatype
>in .NET 2.
Yes I know, the only thing that irks me with .Net's xml support is its basis on xsdl ("xml schema"), the worst schema language there is in not just my humble opinion, however xsdl's being baked into .Net, and it's inclusion in InfoPath, all other Microsoft xml initiatives makes it a really core technology for anyone that wants to not just work with xml on Windows, but wants to perform all manner of programmatic work on Windows.