Rich <rich@example.invalid>:
Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
* At the bottom is HTML. It is extremely crude in its expressive
power. It lists a handful of element types, but documents need
more. In fact, different web sites need different element types.
Well, I wouldn't describe HTML's "expressive power" as crude. HTML's expressive power is quite strong. What is "crude" for HTML is the
default visual presentation of the underlying expressive power of
HTML. The default visual rendering for basic HTML is what is quite
crude.
Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> writes:
I mean HTML only has a handful of element types, regardless of
visuals. Compare it with (La)TeX, which allows you to define new
element types with semantics and all. In HTML, you do it by defining
a div and a class name and externalizing the semantics outside HTML.
There's no <aphorism>, <adage>, <saw>, <definition>, <theorem>, <conjecture>, <joke>, <guess>, <lie>, <rumor> etc...
Ultimately, however, I'd like to note that the flexibility of TeX
comes from it being a full-weight programming language -- contrary to
HTML and CSS, which are merely data languages.
Then, it was already noted that the modern Web ecosystem employs both
data languages, such as HTML and CSS (but also SVG, MathML, RDFa,
various "microformats", etc.), -- and JavaScript for the programming language. And honestly, I'm not entirely sure that comparing a data
language with a programming language quite makes sense. (So, if
anything, shouldn't we rather be comparing TeX to JavaScript here?
Instead of HTML and CSS, that is.)
Hence, I claim that the power of TeX is also its weakness. Yes, one
can implement a seemingly-declarative "markup" language in TeX (such
as LaTeX), but will it be much different to implementing such a
language in JavaScript?
Yes, one can perform static analysis of a TeX document -- but will the results /always/ be more useful than performing that same static
analysis on a pure JavaScript-based Web page^4?
And no, one does not "process" a TeX document to get a PDF -- one has
to "run" it instead.
"Here be the halting problem."
The point is, is there a reason to bother with "data languages" when
what you really need is a programming language. Data is code, and code
is data.
Point is, formal semantics needs a full-fledged programming language.
And by semantics, I'm not referring (mostly) to the visual layout but to
the structure and function of the parts of the document/web site.
Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> writes:
Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net>:
Ultimately, however, I'd like to note that the flexibility of TeX
comes from it being a full-weight programming language -- contrary
to HTML and CSS, which are merely data languages.
Then, it was already noted that the modern Web ecosystem employs
both data languages, such as HTML and CSS (but also SVG, MathML,
RDFa, various "microformats", etc.), -- and JavaScript for the
programming language. And honestly, I'm not entirely sure that
comparing a data language with a programming language quite makes
sense. (So, if anything, shouldn't we rather be comparing TeX to
JavaScript here? Instead of HTML and CSS, that is.)
The point is, is there a reason to bother with "data languages" when
what you really need is a programming language. Data is code, and
code is data.
Note, for example, how iptables are giving way to BPF,
which in turn are finding more and expanded uses.
Also, note how PostScript handles rendering beautifully in the
printing world
and how elisp is used to "configure" emacs.
Hence, I claim that the power of TeX is also its weakness. Yes, one
can implement a seemingly-declarative "markup" language in TeX (such
as LaTeX), but will it be much different to implementing such a
language in JavaScript?
Well, no, it won't. That's the point. All you need is <div> and JS,
but that's also the minimum you need.
Yes, one can perform static analysis of a TeX document -- but will
the results /always/ be more useful than performing that same static
analysis on a pure JavaScript-based Web page?
What do you need static analysis for?
Ok, Google needs to analyze, but leave that to them.
Point is, formal semantics needs a full-fledged programming language.
And by semantics, I'm not referring (mostly) to the visual layout but
to the structure and function of the parts of the document/web site.
"Here be the halting problem."
Mostly, there will be problems with security and DoS, but I suppose
those can be managed. JavaScript and PostScript (among others) have
had to go through those stages.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 71:48:49 |
Calls: | 6,657 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,203 |
Messages: | 5,332,233 |
Posted today: | 1 |