Subject: RE: Is XML a Language? (was RE: [xsl] XSLT Architecture: Next Step) From: "Claudio Russo" <crusso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:40:33 -0300 |
Didie, I adhere to this conception. Let's go back to jerogliphics. Without undertsanding the grammatical rules (with the help of Roseta Stone) they were symbols with no meaning at all (even human guessed this was a form of communication). Claudio. -----Original Message----- From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Lunes, 07 de Julio de 2003 09:37 a.m. To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Is XML a Language? (was RE: [xsl] XSLT Architecture: Next Step) Hi Michael Michael said: I thought a meta language was a kind of language. Didier replies: Thinking about this subject this week end, I even more strongly believe that a meta language like XML is not a language per se but a structure used to create a language. Let's take an analogy from structuralism (Note: for example works from Ferdinand de Saussure and successors). A grammar is a set of rules that a language should conform to, it's a structure. Subjects are placed in a certain position within a named phrase etc... Modern linguistic is based to a certain point on Structuralism. Can we say that grammatical rules are a language? Probably not since the words are missing. Without the words, the structure is not significant, it's a structure without meaning. For example, I may have two languages with similar structure and different words. Are we facing the same language in both cases? Off course not. Is HTML the same language than SVG? I let you provide the answer. Is XML without element and attribute a language? Let's continue our exploration... A structure without words (i.e. keywords, elements, etc...) doesn't mean anything. Moreover, in XML the grammar specified by recommendations 1.0 and up is incomplete, you need to specify, in addition, the position of elements, their occurrences, their attributes with an external language like for instance, Relax, DTD, XSchema (not specified in XML specifications but the recommendations are referring to only certain ones). Thus, we can say that XML specifications (either 1.0 or more recent ones) provide only one part of the structure, the other part is provided by other structure definition languages not defined in the XML recommendations version 1.0 and up. Some of these structure definition languages are even not defined by the vendors' consortium also known are W3C. Some where defined prior to XML and more specifically defined within the ISO process. The other part missing in XML as a stand alone entity are the words, the meaning, the elements. These latter are defined in the structure definition language. In conclusion, if XML is a language then, we can reasonably say that grammatical rules are also a language. However, linguists will argue that a language is comprised of the grammatical rules and the words (i.e. structure and meaning). This last statement can be intuitively resolved by answering to the question: Is Latin the same language as German because both share a common set of grammatical rule? Would a Roman coming back to life today be able to understand German even if both languages share some common grammatical rules? Is a language without words a language? Would our Roman perceive both Latin and German languages as similar? To get an answer we have just to ask the question to our re-incarnated Roman :-) XML only provide a part of the structure (i.e. grammatical rules). This implies that, at this stage, it is barely a language or maybe a phantom language or in philosophical terms an intention toward a language. To create a real language, you need the help of a XSchema, DTD, Relax and tutti quanti structure definition languages. To get a real language, you need to add the words (semantics), how these words are placed (grammar), how many occurrences are allowed in different contexts (grammar), what are the allowed attribute attached to words (semantics). Nope, XML per se, or at least as defined in the recommendations is too incomplete to be called a language. It is however a very useful tool to create ones. Cheers Didier PH Martin http://DIDIER-MARTIN.COM XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Is XML a Language? (was RE: [xs, Didier PH Martin | Thread | Is XML a Language? (was RE: [xsl] X, Bill Cohagan |
RE: [xsl] number total of page, Andrew Welch | Date | Re: [xsl] selective non duplicates, David Carlisle |
Month |