Chris Beggy wrote:
> xml comes up from time to time here. Here's an link to another
> view:
>
> http://xmlsucks.org/but_you_have_to_use_it_anyway/
I liked the last example on slide 8 - just change all of the horrid angle
brackets to God's own characters (opening and closing parens) and it would
be perfect :-). Actually, the presentation makes a lot of good points.
faa
[Sorry for the delay in following up.]
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@ancar.org> writes:
> Chris Beggy wrote:
> > http://xmlsucks.org/but_you_have_to_use_it_anyway/
>
> I liked the last example on slide 8 - just change all of the horrid angle
> brackets to God's own characters (opening and closing parens) and it would
> be perfect :-).
Well, as a Lisp person, I was thinking something pretty much like that
when I wrote it. The foils are quite careful not to mention Lisp directly
(though I suspected that Lisp hackers reading it would recognise its
influence on me) -- it's hard enough convincing people that XML is bad
without trying to evangelise for something else at the same time. While
it's completely obvious to me that the base XML specification offers
little more than labelled brackets, that doesn't mean that all the people
who've jumped on the XML bandwagon are actually willing to listen to that
argument.
> Actually, the presentation makes a lot of good points.
Glad you liked it.
Oh, and thanks to Erik Naggum and Tim Bradshaw for the quotes.
--
Aaron Crane
The voice of the world's most isolated islet: http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk
Aaron Crane wrote:
> Well, as a Lisp person, I was thinking something pretty much like that
> when I wrote it. The foils are quite careful not to mention Lisp directly
> (though I suspected that Lisp hackers reading it would recognise its
> influence on me) -- it's hard enough convincing people that XML is bad
> without trying to evangelise for something else at the same time. While
> it's completely obvious to me that the base XML specification offers
> little more than labelled brackets, that doesn't mean that all the people
> who've jumped on the XML bandwagon are actually willing to listen to that
> argument.
How was it received among the XML cognoscienti in attendance?
The main problems with XML are that it's ugly and a solution to a
non-problem (data interchange) masquerading as a solution to a real problem
(finding common semantics).
faa
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@ancar.org> writes:
> How was it received among the XML cognoscienti in attendance?
As far as I know, none of the people who were there would consider themselves
among the XML cognoscenti. (I'm not even sure who would _want_ to, but
that's a separate issue.) The URL of the foils seems to have travelled quite
widely, though, and I did get encouraging responses from quite a number of
readers, some of whose names are comparatively well known among XML people.
> The main problems with XML are that it's ugly and a solution to a
> non-problem (data interchange) masquerading as a solution to a real
> problem (finding common semantics).
Oh, yes. The other big philosophical problem I'd identify with XML is that
it's never worked out whether it wants to be a class of human-friendly
document markup languages, or a machine-friendly external representation for
tree-structured data. It seems to me that the requirements for the two are
sufficiently different that no one syntax can do both jobs well (if at all).
XML attempts to, and must therefore fail. I would go so far as to say that
the XML WG's third design goal� ("XML shall be compatible with SGML") was
(a) a fairly bad idea to begin with, and (b) a contradiction of their sixth
("XML documents should be human-legible and reasonably clear").
� http://www.w3c.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-origin-goals
--
Aaron Crane
The voice of the world's most isolated islet: http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk
Aaron Crane:
> Oh, yes. The other big philosophical problem I'd identify with XML is that
> it's never worked out whether it wants to be a class of human-friendly
> document markup languages, or a machine-friendly external representation for
> tree-structured data. [...]
sort of like postscript, stuck in between? it looks like XDR persona
will win, due to sheer demand. when doing protocol work (for instance)
your choices are: a) adopt an existing representation or b) invent your
own, and try to explain it to everyone for the next three years [and
put up with loud commentary on your intelligence quotient.] almost
everyone chooses a). so, which one will it be? ASN.1/ber or XML?
see? :-]
oz
---
practically no other tree in the forest looked so tree-like as this tree.
-- terry pratchett
From: Frank Goenninger
Subject: Re: thoughts on xml
Date:
Message-ID: <ofe4houz.fsf@hp.com>
I found an article on /RELAX NG Compact/ - an
XML Schema "alternative".
Somehow they just realized that XML is a bit too
lengthy to be useful :-)
See
<http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/06/19/rng-compact.html>
for the article.
Frank
"Frank Goenninger" <················@goenninger.com> wrote in message ·················@hp.com...
> I found an article on /RELAX NG Compact/ - an
> XML Schema "alternative".
>
> Somehow they just realized that XML is a bit too
> lengthy to be useful :-)
>
> See
>
> <http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/06/19/rng-compact.html>
>
> for the article.
I noticed that the author re-discovered curly braces and
commas. It is *so* much more readable that way.
To quote:
``No more pointy brackets!''
I especially like the introduction of regular-expression
meta operators.
Here is a snippet:
## An ISO 8601, US, or European date format
element dt:date { attribute type {"ISO8601" | "US" | "Euro"},
( element dt:day { xsd:string { pattern = "\d{2}" } } &
element dt:month { attribute days { "28" | "29" | "30" | "31" }?,
xsd:string { pattern = "\d{2}" } } &
element dt:year { xsd:string { pattern = "\d{4}" } } )
}
I think the author has found the bastard son of XML and Perl.
"Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> writes:
> Here is a snippet:
>
> ## An ISO 8601, US, or European date format
> element dt:date { attribute type {"ISO8601" | "US" | "Euro"},
> ( element dt:day { xsd:string { pattern = "\d{2}" } } &
> element dt:month { attribute days { "28" | "29" | "30" | "31" }?,
> xsd:string { pattern = "\d{2}" } } &
> element dt:year { xsd:string { pattern = "\d{4}" } } )
> }
>
> I think the author has found the bastard son of XML and Perl.
I recall Jamie Zawinski's quote:
"Sometimes a hacker has a problem, and he thinks to himself 'I know,
I'll solve it with a regular expression!'. Now he has two problems."
Just wait. XML will spawn its *own* flavor of non-POSIX regular
expressions. And you will be *forced* to use them because everybody
else does... Sigh.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
"James A. Crippen" <·····@unlambda.com> wrote in message
···················@kappa.unlambda.com...
> "Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> writes:
>
> > Here is a snippet:
> >
> > ## An ISO 8601, US, or European date format
> > element dt:date { attribute type {"ISO8601" | "US" | "Euro"},
> > ( element dt:day { xsd:string { pattern = "\d{2}" } } &
> > element dt:month { attribute days { "28" | "29" | "30" | "31" }?,
> > xsd:string { pattern = "\d{2}" } } &
> > element dt:year { xsd:string { pattern = "\d{4}" } } )
> > }
> >
> > I think the author has found the bastard son of XML and Perl.
>
> I recall Jamie Zawinski's quote:
>
> "Sometimes a hacker has a problem, and he thinks to himself 'I know,
> I'll solve it with a regular expression!'. Now he has two problems."
I'm not absolutely sure, but as I recall, Jamie was referring specifically
to the implementation of RE matching in emacs...
>
> Just wait. XML will spawn its *own* flavor of non-POSIX regular
> expressions. And you will be *forced* to use them because everybody
> else does... Sigh.
>
> 'james
>
> --
> James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
> Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
> Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
> Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
"Brad Miller" <·················@NOSPAMmotorola.com> writes:
> "James A. Crippen" <·····@unlambda.com> wrote in message
> ···················@kappa.unlambda.com...
> > "Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> writes:
> >
> > > Here is a snippet:
> > >
> > > ## An ISO 8601, US, or European date format
> > > element dt:date { attribute type {"ISO8601" | "US" | "Euro"},
> > > ( element dt:day { xsd:string { pattern = "\d{2}" } } &
> > > element dt:month { attribute days { "28" | "29" | "30" | "31" }?,
> > > xsd:string { pattern = "\d{2}" } } &
> > > element dt:year { xsd:string { pattern = "\d{4}" } } )
> > > }
> > >
> > > I think the author has found the bastard son of XML and Perl.
> >
> > I recall Jamie Zawinski's quote:
> >
> > "Sometimes a hacker has a problem, and he thinks to himself 'I know,
> > I'll solve it with a regular expression!'. Now he has two problems."
>
> I'm not absolutely sure, but as I recall, Jamie was referring specifically
> to the implementation of RE matching in emacs...
It's either that or he was talking about sed. But the same rule still
applies...
Check his web page. I know it's there.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
"Brad Miller" <·················@NOSPAMmotorola.com> writes:
>> "Sometimes a hacker has a problem, and he thinks to himself 'I know,
>> I'll solve it with a regular expression!'. Now he has two problems."
>
> I'm not absolutely sure, but as I recall, Jamie was referring specifically
> to the implementation of RE matching in emacs...
As quoted in the Unix-Haters Handbook, to the best of my recollection
it runs "[...] 'I know, I'll use sed!'. Now he has two problems".
He may have said different things on different occasions, of course.
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
> "Brad Miller" <·················@NOSPAMmotorola.com> writes:
>
> >> "Sometimes a hacker has a problem, and he thinks to himself 'I know,
> >> I'll solve it with a regular expression!'. Now he has two problems."
> >
> > I'm not absolutely sure, but as I recall, Jamie was referring specifically
> > to the implementation of RE matching in emacs...
>
> As quoted in the Unix-Haters Handbook, to the best of my recollection
> it runs "[...] 'I know, I'll use sed!'. Now he has two problems".
>
> He may have said different things on different occasions, of course.
Indeed. I *have* seen the one mentioning sed before, too.
From here: http://www.jwz.org/hacks/marginal.html
"(Some people, when confronted with a problem, think ``I know, I'll
use regular expressions.'' Now they have two problems.)"
So he's said both. Which makes sense.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
> Indeed. I *have* seen the one mentioning sed before, too.
> From here: http://www.jwz.org/hacks/marginal.html
>
> "(Some people, when confronted with a problem, think ``I know, I'll
> use regular expressions.'' Now they have two problems.)"
>
> So he's said both. Which makes sense.
Right. The last thing he wants is a bunch of Perlites saying "heh
heh, yeah, sed, now they have two problems ... ah, back to my far
superior Perl."
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
"Thomas F. Burdick" <···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
····················@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...
> ·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
>
> > Indeed. I *have* seen the one mentioning sed before, too.
> > From here: http://www.jwz.org/hacks/marginal.html
> >
> > "(Some people, when confronted with a problem, think ``I know, I'll
> > use regular expressions.'' Now they have two problems.)"
> >
> > So he's said both. Which makes sense.
>
> Right. The last thing he wants is a bunch of Perlites saying "heh
> heh, yeah, sed, now they have two problems ... ah, back to my far
> superior Perl."
Where you have a single, albiet much larger, problem.
"Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> writes:
> "Thomas F. Burdick" <···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
> ····················@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...
> > ·····@unlambda.com (James A. Crippen) writes:
> >
> > > Indeed. I *have* seen the one mentioning sed before, too.
> > > From here: http://www.jwz.org/hacks/marginal.html
> > >
> > > "(Some people, when confronted with a problem, think ``I know, I'll
> > > use regular expressions.'' Now they have two problems.)"
> > >
> > > So he's said both. Which makes sense.
> >
> > Right. The last thing he wants is a bunch of Perlites saying "heh
> > heh, yeah, sed, now they have two problems ... ah, back to my far
> > superior Perl."
>
> Where you have a single, albiet much larger, problem.
Oh, you mean a parser for your parser?
Consider a Perl implementation in CPP macros that generated C programs
as its output; similar to Cpre (the original implementation of C++).
This could have use to many, as the readability of the generated C
code could far surpass the original Perl, I think.
Perl is the converse of COBOL.
By the above statement I mean the Logical Converse. (Ie, swap subject
and predicate.) COBOL sacrificed expressiveness for readability.
Perl sacrified readability for expressiveness.
I once encountered a Perl coder (all Perl programs are written in
code) who complained about Lisp. He only liked the backquote
facility. Not because of how it worked, but because it compressed
complicated operations into single characters. Sigh.
'james
--
James A. Crippen <·····@unlambda.com> ,-./-. Anchorage, Alaska,
Lambda Unlimited: Recursion 'R' Us | |/ | USA, 61.20939N, -149.767W
Y = \f.(\x.f(xx)) (\x.f(xx)) | |\ | Earth, Sol System,
Y(F) = F(Y(F)) \_,-_/ Milky Way.
From: Frank Goenninger
Subject: Re: thoughts on xml
Date:
Message-ID: <lm98hmu8.fsf@hp.com>
I found an article on /RELAX NG Compact/ - an
XML Schema "alternative".
Somehow they just realized that XML is a bit too
lengthy to be useful :-)
See
<http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/06/19/rng-compact.html>
for the article.
Frank
Chris Beggy <······@kippona.com> writes:
> xml comes up from time to time here. Here's an link to another
> view:
>
> http://xmlsucks.org/but_you_have_to_use_it_anyway/
>
Beautiful!
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
Chris Beggy wrote:
> xml comes up from time to time here. Here's an link to another
> view:
>
> http://xmlsucks.org/but_you_have_to_use_it_anyway/
>
> Chris
:-)
XML == Lisp-sexps-reinvented-badly.
broken-record-mode:
See http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/xml.html for a reasonable way
to deal with XML in a lisp family language, and simultaneously
probably the best example of the sheer idiocy of the XML thang.
See http://www.w3.org/TR/xexpr/ for a bit of a laugh.
--
Don't eat yellow snow.
"David Golden" <············@oceanfree.net> wrote in message ························@news.iol.ie...
>
> See http://www.w3.org/TR/xexpr/ for a bit of a laugh.
>
To quote from `XEXPR - A Scripting Language for XML'
``This is simple to code, and easy to understand...''
<define name="factorial" args="x">
<if>
<lt><x/>2</lt>
<x/>
<multiply>
<x/>
<factorial><subtract><x/>1</subtract></factorial>
</multiply>
</if>
</define>
I can't tell whether the author is completely clueless, or whether
this is on par with Alan Sokal's ``Transgressing the Boundaries...''
"Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> writes:
> "David Golden" <············@oceanfree.net> wrote in message ························@news.iol.ie...
> >
> > See http://www.w3.org/TR/xexpr/ for a bit of a laugh.
> >
>
> To quote from `XEXPR - A Scripting Language for XML'
>
> ``This is simple to code, and easy to understand...''
>
> <define name="factorial" args="x">
> <if>
> <lt><x/>2</lt>
> <x/>
> <multiply>
> <x/>
> <factorial><subtract><x/>1</subtract></factorial>
> </multiply>
> </if>
> </define>
>
> I can't tell whether the author is completely clueless, or whether
> this is on par with Alan Sokal's ``Transgressing the Boundaries...''
As has been mentioned here before, the fact that this definition gets
0! wrong indicates strongly that "completely clueless" applies.
Cheers,
Christophe
--
Jesus College, Cambridge, CB5 8BL +44 1223 510 299
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ (defun pling-dollar
(str schar arg) (first (last +))) (make-dispatch-macro-character #\! t)
(set-dispatch-macro-character #\! #\$ #'pling-dollar)
Christophe Rhodes wrote:
> As has been mentioned here before, the fact that this definition gets
> 0! wrong indicates strongly that "completely clueless" applies.
>
Well, the author published self-justifications on comp.lang.scheme -
he's not completely clueless as such, and seems well aware that XML is a
bit pants, but neither was it a complete piss-take, unless he's taking the
piss on comp.lang.scheme too - but rereading the thread, I don't think he
is...
See
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=XEXPR&hl=en&lr=&selm=93jjir%24cfv%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=2
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=93nfgp%24nc1%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=26
This is a quote from the author of the spec:
"
YES! I wrote a distributed hypermedia system years ago that did exactly
that. From my view, XML and S-expressions are basically the same thing.
It is a sad (and I mean it) but true statement that XML is far more
prevalent than S-expressions, despite the elegance of the latter.
"
As far as I can tell, he is a major reason the W3C is slowly reimplementing
all of lisp, given that he also claims involvement with XSLT...
--
Don't eat yellow snow.
David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> wrote in message news:<···················@news.iol.ie>...
>
> See http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/xml.html for a reasonable way
> to deal with XML in a lisp family language, and simultaneously
> probably the best example of the sheer idiocy of the XML thang.
>
> See http://www.w3.org/TR/xexpr/ for a bit of a laugh.
See also http://www.waterlang.org/ for another XML-based programming
language (heavily influenced by Lisp although not directly based
on it).