News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Foolproof HTML. Parent comment

Re:Foolproof HTML by kazinator on Saturday February 04, 2017 @07:52PM (#13570102)
The fact that you can do HTML in Lisp is because there is code behind that doing the semantics. What makes you think that those SGML requirements couldn't be done? Sounds to me like about one week's worth of evening hacking.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Foolproof HTML by tannhaeuser on Saturday February 04, 2017 @09:01PM (#13570360)
You're off several orders of magnitude. Implementing SGML is a multi-year effort. You don't have to take my word for it, James Clark has said the same (he has implemented SGML and XML, and also DSSSL, the Scheme-based precursor of CSS and XSLT).

[1]: http://drdobbs.com/a-triumph-of-simplicity-james-clark-on-m/...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Foolproof HTML by kazinator on Sunday February 05, 2017 @11:29AM (#13573078)
Admittedly, I'm assuming that we can use some typesetting back end; i.e., for instance, we don't have the requirement to generate a typesetter-ready image (or PDF document) without any third-party code; we don't have to do our own font rendering and kerning, etc. Also, I'm assuming we don't have to burn cycles Greenspunning up half of Lisp in some dumb langauge.
[ Parent | on HN ]