[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: hyperdoc

From: Bob McElrath
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: hyperdoc
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:41:58 -0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i

Gabriel Dos Reis address@hidden wrote:
> If it conveyed semantics, one would have something to argue about.
> But it does not.  So, it comes to personal experiences, fair
> assessment compared to other formats.  In most cases where I used XML,
> I saw no benefit over lisp-syntax, except occasional additional
> complexity in the way my codes get structured.  In practice, I found
> the "selling" point of XML being more abstract than practical.

Lisp syntax and XML are in 1:1 correspondence.  XML is nothing more than
a tree format with excessive verbiage.  It can be converted by a trivial
algorithm into lisp lists-of-lists.  Parsing takes similar time due to
parsing the same text-based tags of the same length.  This is not the

The point is being able to interface to an increasing number of XML
applications involved in user-interface (MathML, SVG), and interchange
(OpenMath) in the future.

> I guess it all boils down to contribution of actual codes, which I
> have no doubt is going to happen soo.  So the question is probably
> moot. 

Yes.  ;)

I hope that both paths develop (native MathML/browser-based and
TeXmacs).  If contributors are numerous then this questino is moot.  If
at some point we must choose how to allocate finite human resources,
then this argument will arise again.

Bob McElrath [Univ. of California at Davis, Department of Physics]

    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks 
    without knowledge, of things without parallel." -- Ambrose Bierce

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]