Re: [Nbd] Back to the options parsing debate

[Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>]

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 07:59:23PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> --On 31 July 2011 19:34:47 +0200 Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@...186...> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Strike 1.
> >
> > XML is basically nothing more than a tokenizer. You then still need to
> > define a grammar to make sense out of the data contained in the xml.
> > So all you did so far is add an obscuring encoding.
> 
> I know what XML is. Actually you do not need to define a full grammar,
> (in XML terms an xsd / schema / whatever). It's perfectly possible
> to have an extensible xml format without a schema,

schema != grammar.

a 'grammar' is a set of meanings which you assign to a set of messages.
Yes, it's possible to use XML without a DTD, but that doesn't mean
you're not using a grammar -- it just means you're not specifying the
grammer in a well-documented place, that's all.

-- 
The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by
the following formula:

pi zz a