Namespaces and DTDs

Jonathan Borden jborden at
Thu Mar 11 17:16:18 GMT 1999

Bill la Forge wrote:

>From: len bullard <cbullard at>
>>Darn.  Maybe LISP was the right language after all and forty years
>>of computer scientists just didn't "get it".
>Lisp and XML have a few things in common, like being easy to
>determine if they are well formed. Frankly, I think XML will be
>better in the long run because it can be validated against various
    LISP defines a serialization format for lists and atoms (s-expressions)
which employs '(' and ')' in an analogous fashion to XML being a
serialization format for trees.

    LISP also defines a set of rules by which lists are eval'd as functions
with arguments. Aside from syntactic issues, '<' and '>' could be used as
s-expression delimiters without significant change to the LISP interpreter
(aside from the parsing routine). In order to properly compare LISP with
XML, then, we would need to propose a set of rules whereby *x-expressions*
were evaluated.

    The closest we have today is XSL which is not currently a fair
comparison to LISP (e.g. try writing a compiler or word processor in XSL

Jonathan Borden

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list