Re: [Gnu-arch-users] new language, arch, furth, etc.

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Jeremy Shaw <address@hidden>

    > Oh Oh! If we are making requests, can you also talk about document
    > validation?

Yes, but mostly later.

    > I don't like XML much, but one aspect that I do like is the concept
    > (but not implementation) of DTDs. It seems very useful to say, "here
    > is a config file and here is a specification for the config file."

I agree.  URIs and rules for turning them into fetches are
computations are also relevent.


    > For example, imagine an interactive config file editor. If it only
    > knows the basic syntax, then it can do syntax highlighting and
    > formatting, and basic syntax checking, but not much else. However, if
    > you have a DTD-like specification, the editor could give you
    > interactive help, show you valid choices, make sure all the types are
    > correct, etc.

You have to be careful, imo, about underestimating the difficulty of
realizing the W3C "vision".   The results they've produced so far are
a little underwhelming in the ratio of effort / pay-off.   But, yes, 
that kind of thing.

You also have to watch out for believing that the type-language of
DTD's is the last word on statically checkable structured type
languages.

You can also see now one reason why I think it's good that xl data can
represent xl programs (and later posts will expand on that so that xl
data can represent partially-executed xl programs).

    > Here is how you might do a config file using the LAML stuff.
    > [....]

Interesting.  Thanks.

    > As I mentioned before, I make no argument that all of these
    > things and more could not be done in some other language or file
    > format. My goal in presenting this is to argue *for* having
    > something like a DTD no matter what format is used to represent
    > the config files.

I don't think that that's a hard sell unless you mean building it in
at a very low level and making its use mandatory.   Much of utility
can be done _without_ anything DTD-like.   If I play my cards right,
DTD's will wind up being (very nearly) a user-level application that
you can write in xl.

    > And, no, I am definately *NOT* advocating the use of XML in tla.

Good.

    > [1] by both camps, I envision one camp as "full, turing complete
    > config files", the other camp being, "pre-existing format, non-turing
    > complete config files". I believe tom is somewhere in the middle.

I don't think that that's quite the spectrum.   After all, xl is so
far (and will remain) "pre-existing format (though specialized for
this use), non-turing complete config files".

-t