Andrew Welch wrote:
> The definition of an "xml language" in this thread seems to vary
> between languages that use xml syntax and languages that operate on
> xml - if you are just talking about xml syntax then you can invent any
> language you like that does anything and give it an xml syntax... if
> it actually operates on xml that's a bit different.
>
> Something to consider is Scala, which contains an xml type:
>
> http://www.scala-lang.org/node/131
>
> ...so you have both a general purpose language with an inbuilt xml
> processing ability.
That strikes me as an interesting and likely path forward. Instead of
bolt-on APIs, language developers can integrate XML-specific
functionality with their environments.
There's a long way to go here, of course, but what the heck. XML's only
finished its first decade.
Thanks,
Simon St.Laurent
XML exile, pining for nicer tools in familiar environments
http://simonstl.com/
