Well, as long as everyone else is going to be off-topic: What definition of "language" are you using? And while you're at it, what definition of "semantics" are you using? As I recall, a string is an ordered list of symbols and a language is an unordered set of strings. I know that Ka-Ping, despite going to a great university was in Engineering, not computer science, so I'll excuse him for not knowing the Chomskian definition of language, :), but what's your excuse Eric? Most XML people will happily admit that XML has no "semantics" but I think that's bullshit too. The mapping from the string to the abstract tree data model *is the semantic content* of the XML specification. Yes, it is a brain-dead simple mapping and so the semantic structure provided by the XML specification is minimal...but that's the whole point. It's supposed to be simple. It's supposed to not get in the way of higher level semantics. It makes as little sense to reject XML out of hand because it is a buzzword but is not innovative as it does for people to embrace it mystically because it is Microsoft's flavor of the week. XML takes simple ideas from the Lisp and document processing communities and popularize them so that they can achieve economies of scale. It sounds exactly like the relationship between Lisp and Python to me... By the way, what data model or text encoding is NOT isomorphic to Lisp S-expressions? Isn't Python code isomorphic to Lisp s-expessions? Paul Prescod
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4