RE: Announcing LAML version 17.00
Mike Beedle <beedlem <at> e-architects.com>
2002-04-23 20:58:00 GMT
> 4. the term "XML language" , which appears, for example, in section 4,
> is unclear. XML is not a language any more than s-expressions are a
> language. xml is an encoding. (beyond the meaning of the DTD, that is.)
> neither is XML together with a vocabulary any more a language than
> s-expressions together with a set of atoms and syntax rules which govern
> their placement. neither becomes a language until one introduces
> evaluation functions. which still leaves open the question, why an
> s-expression-encoded language is better than an xml-encoded language? is
> there really soemthing about the syntactic rules which permits a
> different family of valuation functions?
Isn't XML an acronym for "Extensible Markup Language"?
But the beauty of Lisp and Scheme is precisely that there is
_no_ difference between the data and code representations.
So, the encoded message or document can be either: code, like
functions, classes, rules, patterns, etc; or data, objects,
data structures (lists, hashmaps, trees, etc.), or facts.
With XML is much harder to do that,