<A HREF="mailto:cmoschini@myrealbox.com?Subject=Re:%20Scripting%20DTD%27s&In-Reply-To=%3C1068836403.77cf3120cmoschini@myrealbox.com%3E&References=%3C1068836403.77cf3120cmoschini@myrealbox.com%3E">cmoschini@myrealbox.com</A> wrote:

> What Aaron's talking about here is basically inventing a new kind of DTD, 
that 
> describes programming languages. This would certainly not be an XML DTD or 
even 
> an SGML DTD - one would have to add some hire parent on the tree, and 
perhaps
>"Programming DTD" and "SGML DTD" could be siblings.

Yes that's true, my idea doesn't fit into any current category.

>This is an interesting idea; Microsoft must have some nod to this concept 
with their 
>.Net architecture, given that the "CLR" is language agnostic, yet demands a 
basic
>feature set be supported (how is that feature set described?). However I've 
seen no 
>details explaining how such metadata is maintained.

I am not
 the guy with the brawn. Just the brain.

>It may be worth the W3C's time - or more likely IEEE - to define a standard 
way of 
>describing a language, since at some point there are really no new features, 
just
>different syntax. It would make it easier for client and server technologies 
to be 
>language agnostic, rather than custom writing it each time (consider the PHP 

>engine, which only works with PHP, versus Microsoft's ASP, which works with
>VBScript, JScript, Python, Perl and a few others - all of this support was 
custom 
>coded). It would especially help Open Source.

>But I doubt any of it has anything to do with HTML - Aaron, I think you need 
to find 
>another mailing list ;o) But you have my best wishes.

Thanks Soopahman. At least you weren't flaming me.

Aaron Eldreth