Bart Lateur wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:54:43 +0100, Roland Giersig wrote: > > >Maybe the title should be : > > > >"Perl should use XML as its basic data type instead of linear strings" > > Horrible. > > I kinda liked your original proposal. But you should NOT focus on XML. > That leaves out too many other possible data sources: RTF, for example, > or TeX. What is typical, is that it is marked up text, in the form of a > tree, i.e. properly nested. Of course a lot of other data formats can be represented like that, but I'd thought that `XML' as a catch-all-word would help convey the importance of the proposal. > The internal structure might as well be easily representable as XML. Yes, I know that XML is the user-visible representation and that the data structures are something totally different. But how can you formulate that: "Perl should have built-in data structures that can hold XML data"? Better? I don't think so. > I do think that the term "non-linear text" is absolutely unclear. So do I, but I haven't found a better catchy description. The text is divided into chunks linked together and each chunk can have attributes attached. "Perl should weave its magic upon attributed text chunks instead of linear text." Maybe: "Perl6 should excell at manipulating *formatted* text." Any other suggestions? Roland -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
