- From: Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:44:17 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 19:20 -0600, Norman Walsh wrote: > Hello, > > Henry is having trouble with git. I checked in > > https://github.com/xproc/notes/tree/master/design > We may or may not need more resources - many of the most successful languages were designed by one or two people, but people with some significant time & energy available. I have a poster to invite people to contribute, but they won't see it until it's too late to come tomorrow, although I did send an announcement. Perl might feel unpleasant (or C++, or Python, or even JavaScript) but part of this comes from "provide mechanism, make hard things possible, be as orthogonal as possible within the design" -- e.g. anywhere you can put an expression you can put any expression. XQuery also has a high degree of orthogonality. Our target audience might be happier with a mix of Perl and XQuery and XSLT than with OOCAML and C++. Possibly we could get some reviews at various stages from some SIGPLAN people, especially if we present the language as a hedge-based choreographing mechanism (to avoid certain phobias)... High-level diagrams may be an effective way forward, but let's also have just enough of a draft syntax that we can get a feel for whether something might work, and for where some of the challenges might be. Biggest question for me - what's the metric for success that's most inportant to the WG? I _think_ it's a pipeline language that people in the XML, data integration, middleware, scripting, text processing and prodction worlds find easy to use and learn, and find useful. Liam
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 06:44:34 UTC