From danbri@tux.w3.org  Wed May  3 09:56:33 2000
Received: from tux.w3.org (IDENT:root@tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
	by swi.psy.uva.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27523
	for <prolog@swi.psy.uva.nl>; Wed, 3 May 2000 09:56:32 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from localhost (danbri@localhost)
	by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA12187
	for <prolog@swi.psy.uva.nl>; Wed, 3 May 2000 03:56:33 -0400
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 03:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
To: prolog@swi.psy.uva.nl
Subject: RE: UNDERSTANDING LISTS
In-Reply-To: <200005030125.NAA20766@atlas.otago.ac.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0005030349200.11345-100000@tux.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



>     - The expansion of the net.  Programmers started wanting HTML parsers,
>       CGI support, CORBA interfaces, interface to Active/X, you name it.
>       Most Prologs didn't have it, and most of these interfaces were
>       really designed with assignment-based languages in mind.  Take the
>       W3C's Document Object Model, for example.  It couldn't be less
>       suited to implementation in a declarative language if they'd sat
>       down and worked it out on _both_ hands for a month.

That's as maybe, but the expansion of the net in itself IMHO works for
rather than against languages in the declarative tradition. There are
other specs beyond DOM. Take the W3C's Resource Description Framework, for
another example. RDF is rather more suited to declarative implementation,
see various links from 
http://www.w3.org/RDF/ and http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ or
http://www.mozilla.org/rdf/doc/inference.html

Possibly a bit off topic for a first post,

Dan

--
danbri@w3.org


