Rough proposal for new standard: Content Mediation.

Discussion in 'XML' started by Christopher Granade, Aug 15, 2006.

  1. I don't know if this is the right place to submit this or not, but I
    had a rough idea for a new web standard that would work closely with
    XML that I wanted to submit to the community for consideration. I
    posted a (very) rough draft to Google Pages for now, if someone wants
    to look at it, but the basic idea is to allow non-XML content to be
    embedded into XML and then converted to XML at parsetime. This would
    allow for a more natural expression of some data, such as allowing
    Notation 3 markup to be embedded within an XML document, rather than
    working directly with the XML RDF representation.

    If anyone is interested, the draft is posted to
    http://cgranade.googlepages.com/contentmediation

    Thanks for your attention and interest.
    --Christopher Granade
    Christopher Granade, Aug 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Christopher Granade

    Soren Kuula Guest

    Christopher Granade wrote:
    > I don't know if this is the right place to submit this or not, but I
    > had a rough idea for a new web standard that would work closely with
    > XML that I wanted to submit to the community for consideration. I
    > posted a (very) rough draft to Google Pages for now, if someone wants
    > to look at it, but the basic idea is to allow non-XML content to be
    > embedded into XML and then converted to XML at parsetime.


    Sure.

    1) XML ain't no tool. It is a language ;)
    2) Isn't this more specific, more general and invented already?
    http://www.brics.dk/xsugar/

    Soren
    Soren Kuula, Aug 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Soren Kuula wrote:
    > Christopher Granade wrote:
    > > I don't know if this is the right place to submit this or not, but I
    > > had a rough idea for a new web standard that would work closely with
    > > XML that I wanted to submit to the community for consideration. I
    > > posted a (very) rough draft to Google Pages for now, if someone wants
    > > to look at it, but the basic idea is to allow non-XML content to be
    > > embedded into XML and then converted to XML at parsetime.

    >
    > Sure.
    >
    > 1) XML ain't no tool. It is a language ;)
    > 2) Isn't this more specific, more general and invented already?
    > http://www.brics.dk/xsugar/
    >
    > Soren


    1) I didn't want to call it that, as XML lets you make languages, and
    in the context it would be confusing, but yeah... I know what the L
    stands for... thanks, though. Seriously, thanks.
    2) It looks somewhat different in that it works for languages for which
    you can write a nice BNF description, but I don't know how you would
    write one for the first language I proposed that would be mediated,
    CasualML. If it works, then I'm all for it. The only other thing would
    be a question of embedding XSugar in an XML document. I'd still want to
    be able to do that, but perhaps that's just a silly idea I've become
    attached to.

    That is a really cool project, though. I'm not sure if the goals are
    exactly the same, but I would love to further the idea of mixing XML
    with things that work better in a particular scenario. I guess I hadn't
    heard of XSugar, since it doesn't see much use apparantly. It's a
    shame, really. I love the BiBTeX embedding idea that BRICS presented.
    Surprised I didn't see XSugar, as I loved JWIG (another BRICS project)
    before it fell out of active maintenance.

    Anyway, thanks again for the pointers!
    --Chris
    Christopher Granade, Aug 15, 2006
    #3
  4. Christopher Granade

    Soren Kuula Guest

    Christopher Granade wrote:

    >>1) XML ain't no tool. It is a language ;)


    > 1) I didn't want to call it that, as XML lets you make languages, and
    > in the context it would be confusing, but yeah... I know what the L
    > stands for... thanks, though. Seriously, thanks.


    Exactly, makes you make languages. M is for Meta, but of course, you know.

    > 2) It looks somewhat different in that it works for languages for which
    > you can write a nice BNF description, but I don't know how you would
    > write one for the first language I proposed that would be mediated,
    > CasualML. If it works, then I'm all for it. The only other thing would
    > be a question of embedding XSugar in an XML document. I'd still want to
    > be able to do that, but perhaps that's just a silly idea I've become
    > attached to.


    Well ... I think that the flip side of your idea is: You want to extend
    XML with something which is not XML, but might have been described in
    XML. That is making things more complicated than necessary (and XML
    survived SGML because --- XML was NOT more complicated than necessary.
    Some full XML implementations actually exist. Some people actually can
    understand all the syntax of any XML document. Can't say that about SGML
    ;) )

    > That is a really cool project, though. I'm not sure if the goals are
    > exactly the same, but I would love to further the idea of mixing XML
    > with things that work better in a particular scenario. I guess I hadn't
    > heard of XSugar, since it doesn't see much use apparantly.


    Research project.

    Oh, you know BRICS! Aarhus is one COOL place for XML buffs to study CS.
    I recently graduated from there (under Møller & Schwartbach!). Made a
    static XSLT validator (a thing that can validate XSLT output even before
    you know the input).

    But keep working on it -- I would just suggest that you leave XML a nice
    and simple language as it is (the parser too), and if you want, define
    other languages that easily _translate_ to XML. These other languages
    could be partially XML themselves...

    Soren
    Soren Kuula, Aug 15, 2006
    #4
  5. Soren Kuula wrote:
    > Christopher Granade wrote:
    >
    > >>1) XML ain't no tool. It is a language ;)

    >
    > > 1) I didn't want to call it that, as XML lets you make languages, and
    > > in the context it would be confusing, but yeah... I know what the L
    > > stands for... thanks, though. Seriously, thanks.

    >
    > Exactly, makes you make languages. M is for Meta, but of course, you know.
    >
    > > 2) It looks somewhat different in that it works for languages for which
    > > you can write a nice BNF description, but I don't know how you would
    > > write one for the first language I proposed that would be mediated,
    > > CasualML. If it works, then I'm all for it. The only other thing would
    > > be a question of embedding XSugar in an XML document. I'd still want to
    > > be able to do that, but perhaps that's just a silly idea I've become
    > > attached to.

    >
    > Well ... I think that the flip side of your idea is: You want to extend
    > XML with something which is not XML, but might have been described in
    > XML. That is making things more complicated than necessary (and XML
    > survived SGML because --- XML was NOT more complicated than necessary.
    > Some full XML implementations actually exist. Some people actually can
    > understand all the syntax of any XML document. Can't say that about SGML
    > ;) )
    >
    > > That is a really cool project, though. I'm not sure if the goals are
    > > exactly the same, but I would love to further the idea of mixing XML
    > > with things that work better in a particular scenario. I guess I hadn't
    > > heard of XSugar, since it doesn't see much use apparantly.

    >
    > Research project.
    >
    > Oh, you know BRICS! Aarhus is one COOL place for XML buffs to study CS.
    > I recently graduated from there (under Møller & Schwartbach!). Made a
    > static XSLT validator (a thing that can validate XSLT output even before
    > you know the input).
    >
    > But keep working on it -- I would just suggest that you leave XML a nice
    > and simple language as it is (the parser too), and if you want, define
    > other languages that easily _translate_ to XML. These other languages
    > could be partially XML themselves...
    >
    > Soren


    I suppose that by now some justification for my ideas is in order. I
    was hoping to find a way of embedding what I call CasualML
    (http://cgranade.googlepages.com/casualml) in an XML file so that a
    user can write something and so that the something in question can both
    be preserved for later editing and transformed to XML for consumption.
    I guess it could all be done server-side, and it probably would be
    anyway, but that was just my idea.
    Christopher Granade, Aug 16, 2006
    #5
    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. John Latter
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    618
    Mark Parnell
    Sep 11, 2003
  2. gianluca

    rough set & python

    gianluca, May 16, 2008, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    289
    gianluca
    May 16, 2008
  3. Roedy Green
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    323
  4. Raymond Hettinger
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    1,518
  5. david vabia
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    312
    david vabia
    May 11, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page