Re: A Conclusion Re: SchemeQL

[MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>]

Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@cs.brown.edu> writes:

> Hmm, I'm losing my edge.  Must be old age. (-:

The wandering hand of senility is upon your... erm, oh damn, what's
that thing at the top of your arm called?  :-)

> >	 Expecting templates to be written in scheme is totally
> > wrong-headed.  The designers just won't go for it.  
> Oh, but the templates are only barely written in Scheme.  As Noel
> points out, they're largely written in a simplified XML syntax.

I don't fancy trying to teach our designers XML or HTML much, to be
honest.  While I have no problem teaching the authors that, the
designers just work with their pasteboard-a-like tools... and people
wonder why I spend so much time complaining of xhtml code bloat ;-)

I *will* take a look at it, though, as it beats what I'm currently
doing.  I suspect I'll still end up providing some regexp engine or
something to drop generated blobs into their pages, though.