dunno. i just don't like it at all. i hate the <> keys :D they look ugly. xml looks ugly..

and most the time, if you look at xml, most part of the file are not data, but xml tag names, and such, filling the whole with useless stuff..

lisp as data format would be great:D

with some simple regexp style definition on how the document has to look

*(window ?(title) *(window)) means a window can contain 0 or 1 title, and
several windows

and then the code, again:D

something like that could be done.. i would prefer it by much..

and when i see xaml being the future, then i think wow, it's a very cool idea, but urgh, xaml files look UGLY! and i fear:D

"Sean Kelly" <sean@ffwd.cx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c0j5el$2q5t$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> davepermen wrote:
>
> > html has another issue.. redundancy. same for xml.
> >
> > xml is espencially stupid, because it tries to have "one unified
solution to
> > a specific data representation", while it provides at least 3 for the
same
> > data.
>
> XML is painfully verbose, but it's not so bad otherwise.  I think the attribute vs. contained element distinction is useful for separating identity data from other data.
>
>
> Sean
>

davepermen wrote:
> 
> and most the time, if you look at xml, most part of the file are not data,
> but xml tag names, and such, filling the whole with useless stuff..

Yup.  Even with short tag names, 75% of the contents of an XML file is probably descriptive data :)

Luckily, you almost never have to actually look at the file, just parse them directly from code.

Sean

this doesn't make it bether. it's a bad fileformat..

"Sean Kelly" <sean@ffwd.cx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c0jj51$eip$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> davepermen wrote:
> >
> > and most the time, if you look at xml, most part of the file are not
data,
> > but xml tag names, and such, filling the whole with useless stuff..
>
> Yup.  Even with short tag names, 75% of the contents of an XML file is probably descriptive data :)
>
> Luckily, you almost never have to actually look at the file, just parse them directly from code.
>
> Sean
>

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:29:52 -0800 (02/14/04 09:29:52)
, Sean Kelly <sean@ffwd.cx> wrote:

> davepermen wrote:
>>
>> and most the time, if you look at xml, most part of the file are not data,
>> but xml tag names, and such, filling the whole with useless stuff..
>
> Yup.  Even with short tag names, 75% of the contents of an XML file is probably descriptive data :)
>
> Luckily, you almost never have to actually look at the file, just parse them directly from code.
>

Here is someone else's response to XML ...

 http://users.pandora.be/tommycarlier/smel/index.htm

Its trying to be a less-verbose alternative.

-- 
Derek

I personally like the ! syntax because it reminds me of the Unix bang:

Unix: #!/bin/bash

"Use bash to run this".

D: TFoo!(int): Use int to run this template.

Walter wrote:

> 
> "davepermen" <davepermen@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c09vms$2slm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> it's still ugly to me.. it feels like a html-tag in c
> 
> The nice thing about the ! is it doesn't overload any other use of !, and so it parses like a champ. I'm a bit surprised ! wasn't used as a binary operator long before. Easy to parse also means things like color syntax highlighting are going to work right without having to build a C++ compiler into the editor.