Re: XML and Lout already work well

[Giovanni Zezza]

Il Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:52:10 +0100, address@hidden scriveva:

>I would argue that varied syntax contributes much less to 
>problem solving than interoperability.

It depends where do you put one and the other.

To be sure, looking the same while being different sometimes isn't so great
an help in interoperability, as you can guess from all that "Faux friend
words" and "Faux amis" in the language section of your library.

>> Maybe, but the XML affaire is not about syntax, it's just little more 
>> than a lexical maquillage.
>
>I think we are talking about the same thing, even if we may not 
>be in synch on the meaning of the word 'syntax' (I have no 
>idea if my use is correct).

If so, then the problem may be how much time do you think one should
deserve to looking at themselves in the mirror, and what profitable result
one can get out by this operation.

>Structured editing, transforming from one semantic model ('DTD') 
>to another,

As I said, that would be great indeed, but (sorry) can't be achieved simply
by XML; in fact, I think, it can't be achieved at all (sorry again). If you
think differently, go and transform XML music to XML chemistry (and/or vice
versa) in some useful and meaningful way; both have a well defined DTD, but
this doesn't help so much, does it?

>structured storage (database), search (finding subsets 
>within the structure), and within a program some libraries you 
>can share (parsing, etc).

"Parsing" I understand (and I've spoken of it); I can't guess though what
do you mean by "etc". "Parsing" is all you get with XML and DTD, all and
every "etc" you want, you have to write it yourself from scratch.

>Same as a line text editor is a generic tool for a simple markup 
>language with just two elements: character data and line 
>separator.

And all the rest you have to put yourself.

Ciao.