-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Larry Hudson wrote:

>> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>>

>>>
>>>> Because of this, they have a
>>>> syntax that is *very* easy to parse for a computer (as an example,
>>>> the XML grammar fits in about 200 lines, whereas the C grammar takes
>>>> over 400 lines (and that's *without* the preprocessor!)
>>>
>>> No XML is better discussion (not sure if that is your argument or not),
>>> please, those lead nowhere. XML being easy to parse is not an
>>> argument for
>>> anybody who knows something about (programming) language theory - the
>>> complexity of a grammar* isn't defined by the name of the language
>>> after all ;-)
>>>
>>
>>     I don't understand your answer so I can't really answer to it, but
>> I'll try to clarify my post:
>> ...
> I also found Thorsten's opening sentence confusing, but I was finally
> able to parse it as meaning:
>      No "XML is better" discussion, please...
> 
	Thanks for the translation ;) Then I can answer Thorsten: No, that
wasn't my argument. I firmly believe that XML would be a poor choice
given the goals pursued by POVRay. As I explained, XML was designed
to be an exchange format between different softwares. As such, it is
intended to be generated by a computer program, not hand-typed. This
is quite incompatible with the idea that POVray scenes are primarily
written by hand.

	XML has its uses, but replacing the POV SDL most emphatically is
*not* one of them.

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG5Ym2d0kWM4JG3k8RAoMbAJ4uiJyqloRfW8XK/Q6RYujbrG6Z+QCfcZ1v
z5Y1l4iHGh+ZDix1dzDWT4g=
=3Fwk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message