[whatwg] Some Clarification on CML Proposal

[Jacob Villarreal]

I was proposing a really simple markup language.  I call it content markup language (CML).  It implements a simple object-oriented content markup infrastructure which treats every page element as an object.  It consists of a simple batch html infrastructure with only four batch file types for forms, fields, menus, and submenus (.frm/.fld/.mnu/.smn).  The batch html files would consist of line sequencing for access to specified lines within batch files.  CML consists of two main tags, being <source>, and <destination>, and five standard tags, being <bmp>, <frm>, <fld>, <mnu>, and <smn>.  All form, and menu objects would be bitmap image objects.  All text objects would be text data.  All other objects would be treated in the standard manner, but would be applied at the corresponding page coordinate.  Appending subtags to the main tags would be done by the plus sign at the end of the main tag.  As far as I know, the table, and field html elements are bitmap objects, so I think they can be implemented easily as form field objects, or menu objects.  I think this would simplify the whole markup language infrastructure.  As far as I can tell, it doesn't require anything else for use for sophisticated web development.  I have a PDF diagram I can send out, in case anyone wants a better picture of the proposal.Thanks,Jacob

[Jacob Villarreal]

Hi,Thanks for responding.  I don't think you have the right picture as to what I was proposing.  I'll try to clear it up a bit.  I was actually proposing a new markup language referred to as content markup language.  The hypertext part of it isn't that important.  CML would has the linking capability, it's really nothing.  The batch infrastructure I was talking about is as simple as text batch files containing the source path information of multiple object source files, such as bitmaps, jpegs, text files, apps, etc...  I think all that is required by the HTML team is to create a batch file for every appliance that is needed with respect to the two tags, multiple type attributes, and subattributes, and the line sequencing shouldn't be too much of a problem either.  I think this solution would completely phase out HTML all together, as it can pretty much do anything a web developer would need, even cold fusion class web applications.  You shouldn't be so concerned about all the technical html bullshit, there are no headers, and footers, only page coordinates, and source files.  As far as the digital container part of it, there isn't any container process involved, I just thought a high def bitmap solution might work well for field objects.  Basically, taking a bitmap object, and applying a border, text space, etc.., for use as the actual graphical object for the input field, for example.  So I figured that the standard field/table graphics that are produced by html are produced as bitmap objects, basically, and that a bitmap image could theoretically be used as a field object within a form graphically, and with the input text space applied.  So I thought the html team might just set it up to work that way.  I think it's a worthwhile option in the www world.  Like I said, I don't have much experience doing html, but please let me know what you think.  I wouldn't mind working with someone on this to get it deployed, if possible.  I can send a pdf diagram to give you a better picture of the whole thing, if you like.  Just let me know.Later,Jacob

I was proposing a really simple markup language.  I call it content

markup language (CML).

You do realize that HTML stands for Hyper Text Markup Language right?
Adding a markup language to a markup language is illogical, it is better
to improve the existing markup language or create a new markup language
instead.

It implements a simple object-oriented content markup infrastructure

which treats every page element as an object.

This sounds like it might be better served by Javascript which is object
oriented.

It consists of a simple batch html infrastructure with only four

batch file types for forms, fields, menus, and submenus
(.frm/.fld/.mnu/.smn).  .... All text objects would be text data.  All
other objects would be treated in the standard manner, but would be
applied at the corresponding page coordinate. ... the table, and field
html elements are bitmap objects ...

This sounds overtly complicated. Also if things are purely bitmaps then
that would cause issues with screen readers, there are enough issues
with tables as it is, if they become bitmaps they'll be a huge pain in
the ass (more than currently).

By the sound of it these file types are container formats, why would you
put a PNG image file inside a container file? Server side filetype
negotiation would need to be redesigned to handle this as well.

Perhaps HTML imports is what could be the solution you are seeking (or
needing), it's still a draft though
http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/imports/
But Mozilla has decided to not support it (that was in 2014 though).

But there is also Javascript imports
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/import
"The import statement is used to import functions, objects or primitives
that have been exported from an external module, another script, etc."
And sounds closer to some of the stuff you mentioned by the sound of it.
Chrome an Firefox should support import, and Edge is in the process of
adding modules.
https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/05/17/es6-modules-and-beyond/#PQc593TJJwqRbpO4.97
But the specs are still not complete yet as far as I can tell.

A "modular" web page where a header and footer and menu and other parts
can reside in different files without the need for server side scripting
is very close.

In the meantime have you tried iframe with the seamless attribute and
some javascript?

[Jacob Villarreal]

Hey Roger,So what's the difference in retrieving an image file by means of html, from a database/folder, in contrast with retrieving an image file from a CML tag which calls it up from a database/folder?  What I thought might work, is structuring the mapping with one folder with all of it's objects, per every page on the site.  So the objects, whether they be text, or image objects are called up from the root of the page for the most part.  As far as I know, the header attributes are used on text for font, and size, etc..  CML would use the same attribute function on text anyway, but you have the option of using text images as content as well.  I don't think there are any overhead issues with CML.  If you analyze it, you might figure that it's the same as far as overhead is concerned, but it's just a more innovative URL solution than html.  Personally, I think html is kind of boring in comparison.  I think CML is alot easier to use, and has alot more capability.  I haven't really gone over all of the possibilities, but I've figured web developers can develop really sophisticated web apps with it.  Like, for example:
<source form:path/ticker.frm:coord><destination record:path/ticker_data.rec/+1>or,<destination record:path/ticker_data.rec/29>

This simple code would take the real-time data from ticker data being sent to the form, and store it in real-time in the ticker_data.rec destination record as text by line sequentially.  The data can then be accessed in runtime sequentially with a +1, or by specific line (as with '29'), for real-time output to a web app.  I think it's pretty neat.  Let me know what you think.  Maybe we can work on it to get it implemented.Later,Jacob

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 4:26 AM, Shane Hudson <***@gmail.com> wrote:


It sounds like you want to use a massive image map for entire websites? There are many accessibility (not to mention performance) issues with doing that.
On 6 Oct 2016 2:45 a.m., "Jacob Villarreal" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi,Thanks for responding.  I don't think you have the right picture as to what I was proposing.  I'll try to clear it up a bit.  I was actually proposing a new markup language referred to as content markup language.  The hypertext part of it isn't that important.  CML would has the linking capability, it's really nothing.  The batch infrastructure I was talking about is as simple as text batch files containing the source path information of multiple object source files, such as bitmaps, jpegs, text files, apps, etc...  I think all that is required by the HTML team is to create a batch file for every appliance that is needed with respect to the two tags, multiple type attributes, and subattributes, and the line sequencing shouldn't be too much of a problem either.  I think this solution would completely phase out HTML all together, as it can pretty much do anything a web developer would need, even cold fusion class web applications.  You shouldn't be so concerned about all the technical html bullshit, there are no headers, and footers, only page coordinates, and source files.  As far as the digital container part of it, there isn't any container process involved, I just thought a high def bitmap solution might work well for field objects.  Basically, taking a bitmap object, and applying a border, text space, etc.., for use as the actual graphical object for the input field, for example.  So I figured that the standard field/table graphics that are produced by html are produced as bitmap objects, basically, and that a bitmap image could theoretically be used as a field object within a form graphically, and with the input text space applied.  So I thought the html team might just set it up to work that way.  I think it's a worthwhile option in the www world.  Like I said, I don't have much experience doing html, but please let me know what you think.  I wouldn't mind working with someone on this to get it deployed, if possible.  I can send a pdf diagram to give you a better picture of the whole thing, if you like.  Just let me know.Later,Jacob

    On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 6:04 PM, Roger Hågensen <***@skuldwyrm.no> wrote:


 On 2016-10-05 08:17, Jacob Villarreal wrote:
 > I was proposing a really simple markup language.  I call it content
markup language (CML).

You do realize that HTML stands for Hyper Text Markup Language right?
Adding a markup language to a markup language is illogical, it is better
to improve the existing markup language or create a new markup language
instead.

 > It implements a simple object-oriented content markup infrastructure
which treats every page element as an object.

This sounds like it might be better served by Javascript which is object
oriented.

 > It consists of a simple batch html infrastructure with only four
batch file types for forms, fields, menus, and submenus
(.frm/.fld/.mnu/.smn).  .... All text objects would be text data.  All
other objects would be treated in the standard manner, but would be
applied at the corresponding page coordinate. ... the table, and field
html elements are bitmap objects ...

This sounds overtly complicated. Also if things are purely bitmaps then
that would cause issues with screen readers, there are enough issues
with tables as it is, if they become bitmaps they'll be a huge pain in
the ass (more than currently).

By the sound of it these file types are container formats, why would you
put a PNG image file inside a container file? Server side filetype
negotiation would need to be redesigned to handle this as well.

Perhaps HTML imports is what could be the solution you are seeking (or
needing), it's still a draft though
http://w3c.github.io/ webcomponents/spec/imports/
But Mozilla has decided to not support it (that was in 2014 though).

But there is also Javascript imports
https://developer.mozilla.org/ en/docs/Web/JavaScript/ Reference/Statements/import
"The import statement is used to import functions, objects or primitives
that have been exported from an external module, another script, etc."
And sounds closer to some of the stuff you mentioned by the sound of it.
Chrome an Firefox should support import, and Edge is in the process of
adding modules.
https://blogs.windows.com/ msedgedev/2016/05/17/es6- modules-and-beyond/# PQc593TJJwqRbpO4.97
But the specs are still not complete yet as far as I can tell.

A "modular" web page where a header and footer and menu and other parts
can reside in different files without the need for server side scripting
is very close.

In the meantime have you tried iframe with the seamless attribute and
some javascript?



--
Roger Hågensen, Freelancer, http://skuldwyrm.no/

[Jacob Villarreal]

Sorry, correction on the code above:
<source port:[ticker_port]><destination record:path/ticker_data.rec/+1>or,<destination record:path/ticker_data.rec/29>
Thanks.

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 4:56 AM, Jacob Villarreal <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


Hey Roger,So what's the difference in retrieving an image file by means of html, from a database/folder, in contrast with retrieving an image file from a CML tag which calls it up from a database/folder?  What I thought might work, is structuring the mapping with one folder with all of it's objects, per every page on the site.  So the objects, whether they be text, or image objects are called up from the root of the page for the most part.  As far as I know, the header attributes are used on text for font, and size, etc..  CML would use the same attribute function on text anyway, but you have the option of using text images as content as well.  I don't think there are any overhead issues with CML.  If you analyze it, you might figure that it's the same as far as overhead is concerned, but it's just a more innovative URL solution than html.  Personally, I think html is kind of boring in comparison.  I think CML is alot easier to use, and has alot more capability.  I haven't really gone over all of the possibilities, but I've figured web developers can develop really sophisticated web apps with it.  Like, for example:
<source form:path/ticker.frm:coord><destination record:path/ticker_data.rec/+1>or,<destination record:path/ticker_data.rec/29>

This simple code would take the real-time data from ticker data being sent to the form, and store it in real-time in the ticker_data.rec destination record as text by line sequentially.  The data can then be accessed in runtime sequentially with a +1, or by specific line (as with '29'), for real-time output to a web app.  I think it's pretty neat.  Let me know what you think.  Maybe we can work on it to get it implemented.Later,Jacob

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 4:26 AM, Shane Hudson <***@gmail.com> wrote:


It sounds like you want to use a massive image map for entire websites? There are many accessibility (not to mention performance) issues with doing that.
On 6 Oct 2016 2:45 a.m., "Jacob Villarreal" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi,Thanks for responding.  I don't think you have the right picture as to what I was proposing.  I'll try to clear it up a bit.  I was actually proposing a new markup language referred to as content markup language.  The hypertext part of it isn't that important.  CML would has the linking capability, it's really nothing.  The batch infrastructure I was talking about is as simple as text batch files containing the source path information of multiple object source files, such as bitmaps, jpegs, text files, apps, etc...  I think all that is required by the HTML team is to create a batch file for every appliance that is needed with respect to the two tags, multiple type attributes, and subattributes, and the line sequencing shouldn't be too much of a problem either.  I think this solution would completely phase out HTML all together, as it can pretty much do anything a web developer would need, even cold fusion class web applications.  You shouldn't be so concerned about all the technical html bullshit, there are no headers, and footers, only page coordinates, and source files.  As far as the digital container part of it, there isn't any container process involved, I just thought a high def bitmap solution might work well for field objects.  Basically, taking a bitmap object, and applying a border, text space, etc.., for use as the actual graphical object for the input field, for example.  So I figured that the standard field/table graphics that are produced by html are produced as bitmap objects, basically, and that a bitmap image could theoretically be used as a field object within a form graphically, and with the input text space applied.  So I thought the html team might just set it up to work that way.  I think it's a worthwhile option in the www world.  Like I said, I don't have much experience doing html, but please let me know what you think.  I wouldn't mind working with someone on this to get it deployed, if possible.  I can send a pdf diagram to give you a better picture of the whole thing, if you like.  Just let me know.Later,Jacob

    On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 6:04 PM, Roger Hågensen <***@skuldwyrm.no> wrote:


 On 2016-10-05 08:17, Jacob Villarreal wrote:
 > I was proposing a really simple markup language.  I call it content
markup language (CML).

You do realize that HTML stands for Hyper Text Markup Language right?
Adding a markup language to a markup language is illogical, it is better
to improve the existing markup language or create a new markup language
instead.

 > It implements a simple object-oriented content markup infrastructure
which treats every page element as an object.

This sounds like it might be better served by Javascript which is object
oriented.

 > It consists of a simple batch html infrastructure with only four
batch file types for forms, fields, menus, and submenus
(.frm/.fld/.mnu/.smn).  .... All text objects would be text data.  All
other objects would be treated in the standard manner, but would be
applied at the corresponding page coordinate. ... the table, and field
html elements are bitmap objects ...

This sounds overtly complicated. Also if things are purely bitmaps then
that would cause issues with screen readers, there are enough issues
with tables as it is, if they become bitmaps they'll be a huge pain in
the ass (more than currently).

By the sound of it these file types are container formats, why would you
put a PNG image file inside a container file? Server side filetype
negotiation would need to be redesigned to handle this as well.

Perhaps HTML imports is what could be the solution you are seeking (or
needing), it's still a draft though
http://w3c.github.io/ webcomponents/spec/imports/
But Mozilla has decided to not support it (that was in 2014 though).

But there is also Javascript imports
https://developer.mozilla.org/ en/docs/Web/JavaScript/ Reference/Statements/import
"The import statement is used to import functions, objects or primitives
that have been exported from an external module, another script, etc."
And sounds closer to some of the stuff you mentioned by the sound of it.
Chrome an Firefox should support import, and Edge is in the process of
adding modules.
https://blogs.windows.com/ msedgedev/2016/05/17/es6- modules-and-beyond/# PQc593TJJwqRbpO4.97
But the specs are still not complete yet as far as I can tell.

A "modular" web page where a header and footer and menu and other parts
can reside in different files without the need for server side scripting
is very close.

In the meantime have you tried iframe with the seamless attribute and
some javascript?



--
Roger Hågensen, Freelancer, http://skuldwyrm.no/

[MegaZone]

Post by Jacob Villarreal
<source port:[ticker_port]><destination record:path/ticker_data.rec/+1>or,<destination
record:path/ticker_data.rec/29>
Thanks.

How is this any different from PHP, ASP, JSP, .Net, ColdFusion, etc? You
could implement your CML on the backend and have it 'output'
XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS for delivery to user agents with compatibility with
everything out there today.

If you want to try to replace HTML, JavaScript, and CSS so that every user
agent needs to understand CML natively - that's just not going to happen.

There are many server-side options and it really sounds like that's where
CML would fit. Your developers would write in CML, and the 'engine' would
render that into the appropriate content for delivery to UAs.

Personally I don't see value in this proposal.
--
-MegaZone / Geek, Gweep, Technophile, me. / Hail Eris, All Hail Discordia
Personal: Google+ <https://plus.google.com/111890035512083705389/posts> /
Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/megazone> / Twitter
<https://twitter.com/#!/megazone> / LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/megazone> / LiveJournal
<http://zonereyrie.livejournal.com/> / Web <http://www.megazone.org/> /
Email <***@megazone.org>
Editor, Gizmo Lovers: Blog <http://www.gizmolovers.com/> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/b/101158028647216708758/> / Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/GizmoLovers> / Twitter
<https://twitter.com/#!/GizmoLovers> / Email <***@gizmolovers.com>
"A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 432-363-4296

[Jacob Villarreal]

Roger,You wrote:How is this any different from PHP, ASP, JSP, .Net, ColdFusion, etc?  You could implement your CML on the backend and have it 'output' XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS for delivery to user agents with compatibility with everything out there today.
In response:I've tried a little bit of PHP, and just seen some samples of ASP, JSP, and ColdFusion.  But in case you didn't notice CML only consists of two tags.  Compare that to PHP, which is very similar to C+ programming language.  I'm not sure if you were complementing or what, but it's true CML would be compatible with pretty much anything out there, including XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS.  In fact, CSS is accomplished by simply appending different sources to be rendered on the page in a layered format.  As for example:
line 1: <source form:[path]:coord>+line 2: <source form:[path]:coord>+
line 3: <source form:[path]:coord>

Tabs would be image objects with linkage to lines within a single cascade record.  I know you think it sounds like batch programming, but it's really not any different from standard html, in that respect, other than the simplicity, and scalability. 
You wrote:If you want to try to replace HTML, JavaScript, and CSS so that every user agent needs to understand CML natively - that's just not going to happen.
In response:Very funny, but CML is so simple, it would only take you around 5-10 minutes to learn it completely.
You wrote:There are many server-side options and it really sounds like that's where CML would fit.  Your developers would write in CML, and the 'engine' would render that into the appropriate content for delivery to UAs.
In response:I don't know why everyone keeps referring to server-side infrastructure in response to CML.  When you access html files located on an Microsoft IIS server, you access folders located either on the server, or on a remote server/database.  CML would access the .frm/.mnu files, for example from the same server's folders, or from a remote server/database.  The difference is in the backend, being on the unix side, I believe, which runs the scripts for html.  So I was wondering if the browsers translate the html code, or if the internet servers require a script update with the appropriate implementations to run on the .frm/.mnu file extensions in order to apply the rules with respect to line text in those files.
So I don't think we're synched up with it too well.  I guess I would like to know whether the browser's code applies the html, or if the internet servers handle the translation for rendering of site content onto the web page.  If the server side handles the processing of html code, it might require a new protocol, or internet information server script.  If the browsers handle the processing of html code, then the browsers would need the update to be able to run CML.  I just thought it would require an entirely new specification in order to implement it for the general public.
You wrote:
Personally I don't see value in this proposal.
In response:I'm confident that CML would replace html entirely, though, by popular franchise, haha.  I'm beginning to get the idea that I would have to develop my own open source website, and driver/script update for browsers, like with Flash updates.
Didn't mean to take up too much of your time.
Thanks anyway,Jacob

How is this any different from PHP, ASP, JSP, .Net, ColdFusion, etc?  You
could implement your CML on the backend and have it 'output'
XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS for delivery to user agents with compatibility with
everything out there today.
...
There are many server-side options and it really sounds like that's where
CML would fit.  Your developers would write in CML, and the 'engine' would
render that into the appropriate content for delivery to UAs.

Yeah! For example, I'm working on a offline CMS that actually uses
include/declaration files for all the components of a static site. The
CMS will grab all that apply templates and "render" the finished html,
PHP is actually used to power this CMS.

Personally I don't see value in this proposal.

I have to agree, I almost feel like I'm being trolled at this point.
Unless a post or a "diagram" shows up that makes me go "Ah! Now I see!"
I'm not going to bother responding to any further posts on this subject.

[Jacob Villarreal]

I find it somewhat strange that we are not able to synch up on this proposal.  It's kind of funny, but there isn't much to these new tags I mentioned.  They're used like any regular html tags, like <form action="action_page.php"></form>, for example, but <source form:[path]/action_page.php:coord>.  So the source tag would retrieve the action_page.php file by means of the source path, and render it at the pixel coordinate specified, on the web page.  So there are only two main tags for the whole CML language, being <source>, and <destination>, and one subtype tag, being <attribute>.  So the attributes within source/destination perform retrieval/storage operations, while the attribute tag performs attribute operations with respect to the type attribute found in the source/destination tags.  So the attribute tag is always used in connection with either the source, or the destination tags individually.  As far as CSS, and Javascript coding, it's much more antiquated than the formatting/scripting possibilities that CML presents.  Static formatting on multiple pages, like what CSS does, can be done more efficiently, by applying one simple line of code to all of the targeted content on the page.  For example:
<destination css><source [type]:[path]:Null><destination css:[path]/css_settings.css>
This would send all of the settings for the objects between the destination tags to a single file for appliance of those settings on other pages, with only two simple lines of code.  That's alot more efficient than html, and CSS.
It's not a big deal, seriously, you don't have to worry about it.  It was just something I came up with after having been agitated by the trouble I had with html.  I couldn't get anything to work.  That's why I would like to get these tags implemented, so I can get started doing much more than what html, CSS, and JavaScript have to offer.
Thanks,Jacob

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:14 AM, Jacob Villarreal <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


Roger,You wrote:How is this any different from PHP, ASP, JSP, .Net, ColdFusion, etc?  You could implement your CML on the backend and have it 'output' XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS for delivery to user agents with compatibility with everything out there today.
In response:I've tried a little bit of PHP, and just seen some samples of ASP, JSP, and ColdFusion.  But in case you didn't notice CML only consists of two tags.  Compare that to PHP, which is very similar to C+ programming language.  I'm not sure if you were complementing or what, but it's true CML would be compatible with pretty much anything out there, including XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS.  In fact, CSS is accomplished by simply appending different sources to be rendered on the page in a layered format.  As for example:
line 1: <source form:[path]:coord>+line 2: <source form:[path]:coord>+
line 3: <source form:[path]:coord>

Tabs would be image objects with linkage to lines within a single cascade record.  I know you think it sounds like batch programming, but it's really not any different from standard html, in that respect, other than the simplicity, and scalability. 
You wrote:If you want to try to replace HTML, JavaScript, and CSS so that every user agent needs to understand CML natively - that's just not going to happen.
In response:Very funny, but CML is so simple, it would only take you around 5-10 minutes to learn it completely.
You wrote:There are many server-side options and it really sounds like that's where CML would fit.  Your developers would write in CML, and the 'engine' would render that into the appropriate content for delivery to UAs.
In response:I don't know why everyone keeps referring to server-side infrastructure in response to CML.  When you access html files located on an Microsoft IIS server, you access folders located either on the server, or on a remote server/database.  CML would access the .frm/.mnu files, for example from the same server's folders, or from a remote server/database.  The difference is in the backend, being on the unix side, I believe, which runs the scripts for html.  So I was wondering if the browsers translate the html code, or if the internet servers require a script update with the appropriate implementations to run on the .frm/.mnu file extensions in order to apply the rules with respect to line text in those files.
So I don't think we're synched up with it too well.  I guess I would like to know whether the browser's code applies the html, or if the internet servers handle the translation for rendering of site content onto the web page.  If the server side handles the processing of html code, it might require a new protocol, or internet information server script.  If the browsers handle the processing of html code, then the browsers would need the update to be able to run CML.  I just thought it would require an entirely new specification in order to implement it for the general public.
You wrote:
Personally I don't see value in this proposal.
In response:I'm confident that CML would replace html entirely, though, by popular franchise, haha.  I'm beginning to get the idea that I would have to develop my own open source website, and driver/script update for browsers, like with Flash updates.
Didn't mean to take up too much of your time.
Thanks anyway,Jacob

Post by Jacob Villarreal
How is this any different from PHP, ASP, JSP, .Net, ColdFusion, etc?  You
could implement your CML on the backend and have it 'output'
XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS for delivery to user agents with compatibility with
everything out there today.
...
There are many server-side options and it really sounds like that's where
CML would fit.  Your developers would write in CML, and the 'engine' would
render that into the appropriate content for delivery to UAs.

Yeah! For example, I'm working on a offline CMS that actually uses
include/declaration files for all the components of a static site. The
CMS will grab all that apply templates and "render" the finished html,
PHP is actually used to power this CMS.

Post by Jacob Villarreal
Personally I don't see value in this proposal.

I have to agree, I almost feel like I'm being trolled at this point.
Unless a post or a "diagram" shows up that makes me go "Ah! Now I see!"
I'm not going to bother responding to any further posts on this subject.

[Jacob Villarreal]

I think I got it straightened out.  The type scripts handle the batch file formats, being .frm/.fld/.mnu/.smn, for multi-source appliance.    The subtype scripts handle the attributes with respect to types.  The 'link' type script redirects link paths to the user agent.  So CML script updates on browsers is what is needed to implement CML.Jacob

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:42 AM, Jacob Villarreal <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


I find it somewhat strange that we are not able to synch up on this proposal.  It's kind of funny, but there isn't much to these new tags I mentioned.  They're used like any regular html tags, like <form action="action_page.php"></form>, for example, but <source form:[path]/action_page.php:coord>.  So the source tag would retrieve the action_page.php file by means of the source path, and render it at the pixel coordinate specified, on the web page.  So there are only two main tags for the whole CML language, being <source>, and <destination>, and one subtype tag, being <attribute>.  So the attributes within source/destination perform retrieval/storage operations, while the attribute tag performs attribute operations with respect to the type attribute found in the source/destination tags.  So the attribute tag is always used in connection with either the source, or the destination tags individually.  As far as CSS, and Javascript coding, it's much more antiquated than the formatting/scripting possibilities that CML presents.  Static formatting on multiple pages, like what CSS does, can be done more efficiently, by applying one simple line of code to all of the targeted content on the page.  For example:
<destination css><source [type]:[path]:Null><destination css:[path]/css_settings.css>
This would send all of the settings for the objects between the destination tags to a single file for appliance of those settings on other pages, with only two simple lines of code.  That's alot more efficient than html, and CSS.
It's not a big deal, seriously, you don't have to worry about it.  It was just something I came up with after having been agitated by the trouble I had with html.  I couldn't get anything to work.  That's why I would like to get these tags implemented, so I can get started doing much more than what html, CSS, and JavaScript have to offer.
Thanks,Jacob

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:14 AM, Jacob Villarreal <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


Roger,You wrote:How is this any different from PHP, ASP, JSP, .Net, ColdFusion, etc?  You could implement your CML on the backend and have it 'output' XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS for delivery to user agents with compatibility with everything out there today.
In response:I've tried a little bit of PHP, and just seen some samples of ASP, JSP, and ColdFusion.  But in case you didn't notice CML only consists of two tags.  Compare that to PHP, which is very similar to C+ programming language.  I'm not sure if you were complementing or what, but it's true CML would be compatible with pretty much anything out there, including XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS.  In fact, CSS is accomplished by simply appending different sources to be rendered on the page in a layered format.  As for example:
line 1: <source form:[path]:coord>+line 2: <source form:[path]:coord>+
line 3: <source form:[path]:coord>

Tabs would be image objects with linkage to lines within a single cascade record.  I know you think it sounds like batch programming, but it's really not any different from standard html, in that respect, other than the simplicity, and scalability. 
You wrote:If you want to try to replace HTML, JavaScript, and CSS so that every user agent needs to understand CML natively - that's just not going to happen.
In response:Very funny, but CML is so simple, it would only take you around 5-10 minutes to learn it completely.
You wrote:There are many server-side options and it really sounds like that's where CML would fit.  Your developers would write in CML, and the 'engine' would render that into the appropriate content for delivery to UAs.
In response:I don't know why everyone keeps referring to server-side infrastructure in response to CML.  When you access html files located on an Microsoft IIS server, you access folders located either on the server, or on a remote server/database.  CML would access the .frm/.mnu files, for example from the same server's folders, or from a remote server/database.  The difference is in the backend, being on the unix side, I believe, which runs the scripts for html.  So I was wondering if the browsers translate the html code, or if the internet servers require a script update with the appropriate implementations to run on the .frm/.mnu file extensions in order to apply the rules with respect to line text in those files.
So I don't think we're synched up with it too well.  I guess I would like to know whether the browser's code applies the html, or if the internet servers handle the translation for rendering of site content onto the web page.  If the server side handles the processing of html code, it might require a new protocol, or internet information server script.  If the browsers handle the processing of html code, then the browsers would need the update to be able to run CML.  I just thought it would require an entirely new specification in order to implement it for the general public.
You wrote:
Personally I don't see value in this proposal.
In response:I'm confident that CML would replace html entirely, though, by popular franchise, haha.  I'm beginning to get the idea that I would have to develop my own open source website, and driver/script update for browsers, like with Flash updates.
Didn't mean to take up too much of your time.
Thanks anyway,Jacob

Post by Jacob Villarreal
How is this any different from PHP, ASP, JSP, .Net, ColdFusion, etc?  You
could implement your CML on the backend and have it 'output'
XML/HTML+JavaScript+CSS for delivery to user agents with compatibility with
everything out there today.
...
There are many server-side options and it really sounds like that's where
CML would fit.  Your developers would write in CML, and the 'engine' would
render that into the appropriate content for delivery to UAs.

Yeah! For example, I'm working on a offline CMS that actually uses
include/declaration files for all the components of a static site. The
CMS will grab all that apply templates and "render" the finished html,
PHP is actually used to power this CMS.

Post by Jacob Villarreal
Personally I don't see value in this proposal.

I have to agree, I almost feel like I'm being trolled at this point.
Unless a post or a "diagram" shows up that makes me go "Ah! Now I see!"
I'm not going to bother responding to any further posts on this subject.