# Re: LISP for Complex URC Sytax [WAS: Re URC func spec ]

Michael Mealling (ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu)
Thu, 24 Mar 94 12:19:22 EST

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Future of meta-indices: site indexing proposal and Perl script"
- Previous message: browne@cs.utk.edu: "URI position statement"
- In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: LISP for Complex URC Sytax [WAS: Re URC func spec ]"
- Next in thread: Simon E Spero: "Re: LISP for Complex URC Sytax [WAS: Re URC func spec ]"

    From: ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)

    Message-Id: <199403241719.AA07428@oit.gatech.edu>

    Subject: Re: LISP for Complex URC Sytax [WAS: Re URC func spec ]

    To: timbl@www0.cern.ch

    Date: Thu, 24 Mar 94 12:19:22 EST

    In-Reply-To: <9403241219.AA14575@ptpc00.cern.ch>; from "Tim Berners-Lee" at Mar 24, 94 1:19 pm

Tim Berners-Lee said this:
> > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 20:32:16 -0500
> > From: Simon E Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
> >
>
> > Using a lisp syntax is a great idea (hell, my next home system is going to
> be
> > a symbolics 3645); however it might be more appropriate to use SGML to
> > do structured text. If you compare the number of HTML pages out there with
> > the number of completed IAFA templates, it's clear that using RFC822 style
> > layout isn't always a big win.
>
> I agree completely with Mitra and Dan that the structure ought to
> be evident. This rules out simple RFC822 headers.
> (I say this even though HTTP uses them for URC info
> at the moment.)
>
> I propose that the definition of the field names and values in
> the structure be done as a separte effort from the decision
> on a standard encoding/presentation. It looks at first
> glance that, as the structures only contain as field values
> strings and otehr structures, it will be simple to define mappings
> onto LISP, and SGML syntaxes.

If we keep that simple RFC822 encoding at the top then there's no reason
we can't specify specific encoding types as whatever get's put on the
right had side. It think that simple encoding buy's two things:

1) easy to implement now by people who don't know anything about SGML or LISP.
This is the power behind HTML and HTML+. It's easy to write a document.
Hell, most of the HTML authors out there wouldn't know proper SGML if
it bit 'em on the arse.

2) It gives us an easy upgrade path for whatever better encoding schemes come
along latter. For example, if say latter on we have two standards develop
that markup meta-info as SMGL and LISP we can still transport both in the
same package with our URNs and URLs:

URN:bla
SGML_INFO:<icky>icky</icky>
LISP_INFO:whoever you would encode (icky)

-mm

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Michael Mealling                     ! Hypermedia WWW, WAIS, and gopher will be
    Georgia Institute of Technology      ! here soon via MIME. Your view of the
    Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu      ! internet is about to change completely!

- Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Future of meta-indices: site indexing proposal and Perl script"
- Previous message: browne@cs.utk.edu: "URI position statement"
- In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: LISP for Complex URC Sytax [WAS: Re URC func spec ]"
- Next in thread: Simon E Spero: "Re: LISP for Complex URC Sytax [WAS: Re URC func spec ]"