Quoteing itsme213 / hotmail.com, on Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:46:30PM +0900:
> 
> "Sam Roberts" <sroberts / uniserve.com> wrote
> 
> > I don't know, what's not fun about XML?
> 
> Since you did not include any smileys ...
> 
> (1) Having a uniform and extensible concrete syntax for tree structures is
> great
> (2) Having a whole set of uniform manipulations on (1) is great
> (3) Insisting on applying (1) to the concrete syntax of (2) is absurd and
> the result, ugly

I don't know what (3) is talking about. The syntax of XPath isn't XML.
It's a domain-specific language inside XML, much as regexs are a
domain-specific language inside ruby.

> Just about every (computer) language has a natural underlying tree
> structure, with lots of cross-tree links. So, should we now start to write
> our Ruby using XML ?

No, nor YAML, has anybody suggested doing so?

Sam