On 4/12/10, Lorenzo Bolla <lbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius > <svartma...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 4/8/10, Jacob Todd <jaketodd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 06:22:49PM +0000, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: >> >> ... >> >> P.S. I'm new here. Why's XML so evil? If you don't have to test for >> >> well-formed and validness, that is. >> > http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/xml/ >> We can all agree that XML is insane as a interchange format between >> databases. But for basic markup, when markdown/(re)StructuredText >> sn't a fit, it allows one to use a (hopefully simple) generic parser. >> Sexp(r)s are bloated with type info, and have a name which can get >> them confused with structured-expressions. XML is (ugh) >> SGML-compatible and quite readable if used sparsily, and only used to >> add semantic info to content in another language such as English or >> SPARC-assembly. Some Tcl-based syntax would maybe suck less, but is it >> worth it to get rid of XML-style closing tags? >> >> title lolcats >> author Thorlacius Bjartur >> author Friend Imaginary >> para { >> This is a slightly better alternative to XML. >> } >> para "XML at least doesn't require quotes: >> [ http://w3.org/TR/xml ]" >> para [ /bin/games/fortune ] >> # URIs enclosed in []s get replaced by the resource. >> >> > S-expr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-expression) would be even better. But > this has been said sooo many times... A) Lots of Irritating and Silly Parentheses. And I hate 'em. B) Don't they have some type info? I thought I saw some mention of that (as a plus) on that WikiWiki I have got lost on quite a few times the last few days. That's bloat.
Which do you prefer and think is easier to type? (title "Lolcats") title Lolcats -- kv, - Bjartur
