I'm looking for a name for a my new XML-like language.

Discussion in 'XML' started by Tommy Carlier, Jul 15, 2003.

  1. I've created a data structuring format (you can't really call it a
    markup language), that behaves like XML, but that's much more
    flexible. You can have elements without names, attributes without
    names, you don't need something like CDATA or entities, and there's no
    such thing as DTD.

    Now I'm looking for an interesting name for it. I've thought of using
    a name like *ML (replace the * by any letter), but all the letters
    were already taken.

    Now I think I might not use an acronym: there are already too much of
    them. So I'm looking for a symbolic name, perhaps an animal name.

    The format is a lot smaller than XML, less verbose but still
    human-readable. It's optimized for small files, fast and small parsers
    and intelligent usage.

    Can anyone help me?
    Tommy Carlier, Jul 15, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tommy Carlier

    hilz Guest

    WTFML?????????????
    :)
    just kidding....
    just came to my mind and i though i must say it!
    hehe
    :)



    "Tommy Carlier" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've created a data structuring format (you can't really call it a
    > markup language), that behaves like XML, but that's much more
    > flexible. You can have elements without names, attributes without
    > names, you don't need something like CDATA or entities, and there's no
    > such thing as DTD.
    >
    > Now I'm looking for an interesting name for it. I've thought of using
    > a name like *ML (replace the * by any letter), but all the letters
    > were already taken.
    >
    > Now I think I might not use an acronym: there are already too much of
    > them. So I'm looking for a symbolic name, perhaps an animal name.
    >
    > The format is a lot smaller than XML, less verbose but still
    > human-readable. It's optimized for small files, fast and small parsers
    > and intelligent usage.
    >
    > Can anyone help me?
    hilz, Jul 15, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tommy Carlier

    Peter Flynn Guest

    Tommy Carlier wrote:
    > I've created a data structuring format (you can't really call it a
    > markup language), that behaves like XML, but that's much more
    > flexible. You can have elements without names, attributes without
    > names, you don't need something like CDATA or entities, and there's no
    > such thing as DTD.


    What use is it?

    ///Peter
    Peter Flynn, Jul 16, 2003
    #3
  4. Peter Flynn <> wrote in message news:<bf2643$a82qd$-berlin.de>...
    > Tommy Carlier wrote:
    > > I've created a data structuring format (you can't really call it a
    > > markup language), that behaves like XML, but that's much more
    > > flexible. You can have elements without names, attributes without
    > > names, you don't need something like CDATA or entities, and there's no
    > > such thing as DTD.

    >
    > What use is it?
    >

    What use is XML? Just like XML it is a general format that does
    nothing else than provide structure to data.
    Tommy Carlier, Jul 16, 2003
    #4
  5. Tommy Carlier wanted a name on his special brand of XML

    Call it: TCML (Tommy Carlier Mysterious Language)

    Regards
    Kurt Svensson
    www.inobiz.com
    Kurt Svensson, Jul 16, 2003
    #5
  6. Kurt Svensson <> schreef op 16 Jul 2003 07:23:57 -0700:

    > Tommy Carlier wanted a name on his special brand of XML
    >
    > Call it: TCML (Tommy Carlier Mysterious Language)
    >
    > Regards
    > Kurt Svensson
    > www.inobiz.com
    >


    It's not really a special brand of XML, it's an alternative for XML.

    XML looks like:

    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <html>
    <head><title>Title of the document</title></head>
    <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <h1>A header</h1>
    <p>
    A paragraph with a horizontal line: <hr/>
    </p>
    </body>
    </html>

    In my language, the previous document would look like:

    <xml version="1.0">
    html
    {
    head { title { "Title of the document" } }
    body ( bgcolor="#FFFFFF" )
    {
    h1 { "A header" }
    p
    {
    "A paragraph with a horizontal line:" hr;
    }
    }
    }

    If you remove all unnecessary spaces, you get:

    <?xml version="1.0"?><html><head><title>Title of the
    document</title></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><h1>A header</h1><p>A
    paragraph with a horizontal line:<hr/></p></body></html>

    versus:

    <xml version="1.0">html{head{title{"Title of the
    document"}}body(bgcolor="#FFFFFF"){h1{"A header"}p{"A paragraph with a
    horizontal line:"hr;}}}
    Tommy Carlier, Jul 16, 2003
    #6
  7. Tommy Carlier

    Bob Foster Guest

    Doesn't seem that much more concise or easier to read.

    Bob
    P.S. That <xml version="1.0"> doesn't belong there.
    P.P.S. To heck with trivial examples, let's see how the schema for XML
    Schema looks in this language.

    "Tommy Carlier" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > Kurt Svensson <> schreef op 16 Jul 2003 07:23:57 -0700:
    >
    > > Tommy Carlier wanted a name on his special brand of XML
    > >
    > > Call it: TCML (Tommy Carlier Mysterious Language)
    > >
    > > Regards
    > > Kurt Svensson
    > > www.inobiz.com
    > >

    >
    > It's not really a special brand of XML, it's an alternative for XML.
    >
    > XML looks like:
    >
    > <?xml version="1.0"?>
    > <html>
    > <head><title>Title of the document</title></head>
    > <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    > <h1>A header</h1>
    > <p>
    > A paragraph with a horizontal line: <hr/>
    > </p>
    > </body>
    > </html>
    >
    > In my language, the previous document would look like:
    >
    > <xml version="1.0">
    > html
    > {
    > head { title { "Title of the document" } }
    > body ( bgcolor="#FFFFFF" )
    > {
    > h1 { "A header" }
    > p
    > {
    > "A paragraph with a horizontal line:" hr;
    > }
    > }
    > }
    >
    > If you remove all unnecessary spaces, you get:
    >
    > <?xml version="1.0"?><html><head><title>Title of the
    > document</title></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><h1>A header</h1><p>A
    > paragraph with a horizontal line:<hr/></p></body></html>
    >
    > versus:
    >
    > <xml version="1.0">html{head{title{"Title of the
    > document"}}body(bgcolor="#FFFFFF"){h1{"A header"}p{"A paragraph with a
    > horizontal line:"hr;}}}
    Bob Foster, Jul 17, 2003
    #7
  8. What's easier to read:
    <title>A title</title>
    or
    title { "A title" }

    I think it's a little easier to read the second. And it's smaller, so
    faster to transport and faster to parse. The BNF-notation of the
    format is also a lot smaller and less complex than that of XML, so a
    parser should also be less complex.

    The language also has other features like elements with no name,
    attributes without a name or a value, ...

    It's much cleaner to work with lists and tables:
    in XML/HTML a list would look like:
    <ul>
    <li>Item 1</li>
    <li>Item 2</li>
    <li>Item 3</li>
    </ul>

    In my format, you can write a list like:
    ul
    {
    li { "Item 1" }
    li { "Item 2" }
    li { "Item 3" }
    }

    Because the children of a list are always LI-elements, you can leave
    the name LI away, and because the elements only have 1 text-element as
    a child, you can leave the { and } away too, so the code would look
    like:
    ul
    {
    "Item 1"
    "Item 2"
    "Item 3"
    }

    Now remove all the unnecessary spaces, and you get:
    <ul><li>Item 1</li><li>Item 2</li><li>Item 3</li></ul>
    versus
    ul{"Item 1""Item 2""Item 2"}

    Think of what it can do to tables if you know that the children of a
    TABLE-element are always rows (TR) and the children of rows are always
    cells (TD).

    Now I'm still looking for a name :)
    Tommy Carlier, Jul 17, 2003
    #8
  9. is it still easier to read if you have a nesting of say 30 elements deep
    sounds like a lot of

    }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

    to me
    which } closed the opening element?

    Colin

    "Tommy Carlier" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > What's easier to read:
    > <title>A title</title>
    > or
    > title { "A title" }
    >
    > I think it's a little easier to read the second. And it's smaller, so
    > faster to transport and faster to parse. The BNF-notation of the
    > format is also a lot smaller and less complex than that of XML, so a
    > parser should also be less complex.
    >
    > The language also has other features like elements with no name,
    > attributes without a name or a value, ...
    >
    > It's much cleaner to work with lists and tables:
    > in XML/HTML a list would look like:
    > <ul>
    > <li>Item 1</li>
    > <li>Item 2</li>
    > <li>Item 3</li>
    > </ul>
    >
    > In my format, you can write a list like:
    > ul
    > {
    > li { "Item 1" }
    > li { "Item 2" }
    > li { "Item 3" }
    > }
    >
    > Because the children of a list are always LI-elements, you can leave
    > the name LI away, and because the elements only have 1 text-element as
    > a child, you can leave the { and } away too, so the code would look
    > like:
    > ul
    > {
    > "Item 1"
    > "Item 2"
    > "Item 3"
    > }
    >
    > Now remove all the unnecessary spaces, and you get:
    > <ul><li>Item 1</li><li>Item 2</li><li>Item 3</li></ul>
    > versus
    > ul{"Item 1""Item 2""Item 2"}
    >
    > Think of what it can do to tables if you know that the children of a
    > TABLE-element are always rows (TR) and the children of rows are always
    > cells (TD).
    >
    > Now I'm still looking for a name :)
    Colin Mackenzie, Jul 17, 2003
    #9
  10. "Tommy Carlier" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > What's easier to read:
    > <title>A title</title>
    > or
    > title { "A title" }
    >
    > I think it's a little easier to read the second. And it's smaller, so
    > faster to transport and faster to parse.


    Comm links usually have some kind of compression algorithm.
    Zip both versions and see which is smaller, and by how much.
    Compression squeezes repetition & xml tags tend to be repetitive.
    Steven Dilley, Jul 18, 2003
    #10
  11. Tommy Carlier

    GIMME Guest

    How about SMEL ?

    (S)uper (M)agic (E)xcellent (L)anguage pronounced SMELL

    Then call your transforms SMELTs .

    It has a clever ring to it especially for when things go wrong ...


    If you prounce XML as egg-smell then you'd have ...



    We used to use XML but now we use SMEL.

    It things used to work great, they used to work swell,

    The day it failed I couldn't describe how I felt.

    I had never SMELT a SMELT like that SMELT SMELT
    GIMME, Jul 18, 2003
    #11
  12. (GIMME) wrote in
    news::

    > How about SMEL ?
    > (S)uper (M)agic (E)xcellent (L)anguage pronounced SMELL
    > Then call your transforms SMELTs .
    >
    > It has a clever ring to it especially for when things go wrong ...
    > If you pronounce XML as egg-smell then you'd have ...
    >
    > We used to use XML but now we use SMEL.
    > If things used to work great, they used to work swell,
    > The day it failed I couldn't describe how I felt.
    > I had never SMELT a SMELT like that SMELT SMELT


    Nice one, I'll consider using it :D
    Perhaps I'll modify it a little, since Super Magic Excellent Language
    sounds a little like "I'm the best programmer in the world and there's no
    better language than mine and all the others suck."

    What about (S)ome (M)odest (E)xtensible (L)anguage?
    Tommy Carlier, Jul 19, 2003
    #12
  13. "Steven Dilley" <> wrote in
    news:3f186759$1@10.10.0.241:

    > "Tommy Carlier" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> What's easier to read:
    >> <title>A title</title>
    >> or
    >> title { "A title" }
    >>
    >> I think it's a little easier to read the second. And it's smaller, so
    >> faster to transport and faster to parse.

    >
    > Comm links usually have some kind of compression algorithm.
    > Zip both versions and see which is smaller, and by how much.
    > Compression squeezes repetition & xml tags tend to be repetitive.
    >


    OK, if compressed the difference in size between XML and ?ML won't be that
    big, but to parse it you have to decompress it first, and the less
    characters to parse, the faster the parser will work.
    Tommy Carlier, Jul 19, 2003
    #13
  14. "Tommy Carlier" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Now remove all the unnecessary spaces, and you get:
    > <ul><li>Item 1</li><li>Item 2</li><li>Item 3</li></ul>
    > versus
    > ul{"Item 1""Item 2""Item 2"}


    Now you're one parenthesis level away from re-inventing LISP syntax for
    list-structured data:

    (ul ("Item 1" "Item 2" "Item 3"))

    You can freely combine program code and data!. Tons o' fun.

    LISP has been around for 40+ years. CommonLISP is an ISO standard, so you've
    got that working for you.

    /kmc
    Keith M. Corbett, Jul 23, 2003
    #14
  15. "Keith M. Corbett" <> wrote in
    news:bfl2s0$q5v$:
    > "Tommy Carlier" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Now remove all the unnecessary spaces, and you get:
    >> <ul><li>Item 1</li><li>Item 2</li><li>Item 3</li></ul>
    >> versus
    >> ul{"Item 1""Item 2""Item 2"}

    > Now you're one parenthesis level away from re-inventing LISP syntax
    > for list-structured data:
    > (ul ("Item 1" "Item 2" "Item 3"))
    > You can freely combine program code and data!. Tons o' fun.
    > LISP has been around for 40+ years. CommonLISP is an ISO standard, so
    > you've got that working for you.
    > /kmc


    I used the notation ELEMENT(ATTRIBUTES){CHILDREN} because I'm used to
    programming in languages like C, C++ and C#, and that notation is used
    quite a lot there: if(...){...}, while(...){...}, void(...){...},...

    Yes, I was inspired by program code notation, only it wasn't LISP. Although
    I think the LISP-notation would also be a good alternative.

    So I thought it would be easier for programmers to read this code than to
    read XML. I've already got a working parser in the rather unknown
    programming language Euphoria (http://www.RapidEuphoria.com), but I'm
    thinking of creating parsers in other languages like C#, C, Java,... If
    anyone wants to help me create parsers and other tools, feel free to send
    me an e-mail, or post a response to this thread.
    Tommy Carlier, Jul 23, 2003
    #15
  16. Tommy Carlier wrote:

    (snip)

    >
    > It's much cleaner to work with lists and tables:
    > in XML/HTML a list would look like:
    > <ul>
    > <li>Item 1</li>
    > <li>Item 2</li>
    > <li>Item 3</li>
    > </ul>
    >
    > In my format, you can write a list like:
    > ul
    > {
    > li { "Item 1" }
    > li { "Item 2" }
    > li { "Item 3" }
    > }
    >
    > Because the children of a list are always LI-elements,


    Ho, really ?

    Funny, I use nested lists, and that works quite fine in HTML :
    <ul>
    <li>item1</li>
    <li>item2></li>
    <ul>
    <li>item2-1</li>
    <li>item2-2</li>
    </ul>
    </ul>

    > you can leave
    > the name LI away, and because the elements only have 1 text-element as
    > a child, you can leave the { and } away too, so the code would look
    > like:
    > ul
    > {
    > "Item 1"
    > "Item 2"
    > "Item 3"
    > }
    >


    Now what would my nested lists look like ? This ?

    ul
    {
    "item1"
    "item2"
    ul
    {
    "item2-1"
    "item2-2"
    }
    }


    Bruno
    Bruno Desthuilliers, Jul 28, 2003
    #16
  17. "Keith M. Corbett" <> wrote in message
    news:bfl2s0$q5v$...
    > "Tommy Carlier" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > Now remove all the unnecessary spaces, and you get:
    > > <ul><li>Item 1</li><li>Item 2</li><li>Item 3</li></ul>
    > > versus
    > > ul{"Item 1""Item 2""Item 2"}

    >
    > Now you're one parenthesis level away from re-inventing LISP syntax for
    > list-structured data:
    >
    > (ul ("Item 1" "Item 2" "Item 3"))
    >


    Actually, he is zero braces and a few quotes away from CSS.
    ul {color:blue; }
    Steven Dilley, Jul 30, 2003
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rolf Magnus
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    393
    Jean-Claude Arbaut
    Jun 14, 2005
  2. Mark Hahn
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    669
    Richie Hindle
    Sep 3, 2004
  3. Patrick Kowalzick
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    470
    Patrick Kowalzick
    Mar 14, 2006
  4. Replies:
    28
    Views:
    1,168
  5. Dotan Cohen
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    306
Loading...

Share This Page