Re: [whatwg] Some Clarification on CML Proposal

Roger,You wrote:How is this any different from PHP, ASP, JSP, .Net, ColdFusion, etc?  You could implement your CML on the backend and have it 'output' XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS for delivery to user agents with compatibility with everything out there today.
In response:I've tried a little bit of PHP, and just seen some samples of ASP, JSP, and ColdFusion.  But in case you didn't notice CML only consists of two tags.  Compare that to PHP, which is very similar to C+ programming language.  I'm not sure if you were complementing or what, but it's true CML would be compatible with pretty much anything out there, including XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS.  In fact, CSS is accomplished by simply appending different sources to be rendered on the page in a layered format.  As for example:
line 1: <source form:[path]:coord>+line 2: <source form:[path]:coord>+
line 3: <source form:[path]:coord>

Tabs would be image objects with linkage to lines within a single cascade record.  I know you think it sounds like batch programming, but it's really not any different from standard html, in that respect, other than the simplicity, and scalability. 
You wrote:If you want to try to replace HTML, JavaScript, and CSS so that every user agent needs to understand CML natively - that's just not going to happen.
In response:Very funny, but CML is so simple, it would only take you around 5-10 minutes to learn it completely.
You wrote:There are many server-side options and it really sounds like that's where CML would fit.  Your developers would write in CML, and the 'engine' would render that into the appropriate content for delivery to UAs.
In response:I don't know why everyone keeps referring to server-side infrastructure in response to CML.  When you access html files located on an Microsoft IIS server, you access folders located either on the server, or on a remote server/database.  CML would access the .frm/.mnu files, for example from the same server's folders, or from a remote server/database.  The difference is in the backend, being on the unix side, I believe, which runs the scripts for html.  So I was wondering if the browsers translate the html code, or if the internet servers require a script update with the appropriate implementations to run on the .frm/.mnu file extensions in order to apply the rules with respect to line text in those files.
So I don't think we're synched up with it too well.  I guess I would like to know whether the browser's code applies the html, or if the internet servers handle the translation for rendering of site content onto the web page.  If the server side handles the processing of html code, it might require a new protocol, or internet information server script.  If the browsers handle the processing of html code, then the browsers would need the update to be able to run CML.  I just thought it would require an entirely new specification in order to implement it for the general public.
You wrote:
Personally I don't see value in this proposal.
In response:I'm confident that CML would replace html entirely, though, by popular franchise, haha.  I'm beginning to get the idea that I would have to develop my own open source website, and driver/script update for browsers, like with Flash updates.
Didn't mean to take up too much of your time.
Thanks anyway,Jacob 

    On Thursday, October 6, 2016 8:02 AM, Roger Hågensen <rh_whatwg@skuldwyrm.no> wrote:
 

 On 2016-10-06 14:15, MegaZone wrote:
> How is this any different from PHP, ASP, JSP, .Net, ColdFusion, etc?  You
> could implement your CML on the backend and have it 'output'
> XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS for delivery to user agents with compatibility with
> everything out there today.
>...
> There are many server-side options and it really sounds like that's where
> CML would fit.  Your developers would write in CML, and the 'engine' would
> render that into the appropriate content for delivery to UAs.

Yeah! For example, I'm working on a offline CMS that actually uses 
include/declaration files for all the components of a static site. The 
CMS will grab all that apply templates and "render" the finished html, 
PHP is actually used to power this CMS.

> Personally I don't see value in this proposal.
I have to agree, I almost feel like I'm being trolled at this point.
Unless a post or a "diagram" shows up that makes me go "Ah! Now I see!" 
I'm not going to bother responding to any further posts on this subject.


-- 
Roger Hågensen, Freelancer, http://skuldwyrm.no/

Received on Thursday, 6 October 2016 14:18:00 UTC