Comment by Lammy 12 hours ago
> Minimal Abstract Markup Language
Pardon my naming nitpick and lack of commentary on any technical aspect, but I don't think this is a markup language. What is being marked up? HTML is called that because it's marking up text with like bold and italics and font and color and paragraphs and stuff.
To be fair, YAML's creators had the same misunderstanding. Compare:
No? Intelligence is not telepathy. You can't just assume that your initial interpretation is the correct one, even more so if you interpretation doesn't make sense. Like in this case, where the parents interpretation of "abstract" is literally not applicable to this configuration language.
Wow, wasn't aware (or simply never noticed) the name change. I was still calling it yet another...
Occasional misuse doesn't change its nature. It seems as if MAML cannot be used as a markup language.
But XML was designed as a markup language. That is was often used for configuration is not its fault. (And it works much better for its original purpose, where the otherwise strange distinction between attributes and child nodes actually makes sense.)
MAML seems to be designed as a configuration language, but calls itself a markup language. (YAML did too, but they changed it at some point.)
> Is XML a markup language?
Yes, the hint is in the name:
Extensible Markup Language (XML)[0]
Your parent comment (hnlmorg) already knows that "ML" in MAML is a misnomer. They are explaining why your grandparent comment (AdieuToLogic) does not explain very well why XML is a markup language but MAML isn't.
Your GP comment says that XML has markup in the name so that's a hint that XML is a markup language. Well... so does MAML. But we all agree that MAML is not a markup language. So we can't just say that XML is a markup language because the hint is in the name. By that logic, MAML would be a markup language too but it isn't. We need a stronger argument to explain why XML is a markup language and MAML is not. Like XML can markup content but MAML cannot markup anything. That was your parent comment's point.
This whole subthread has become an example of arguing for the sake of arguing. The messages in this subthread are correct on their own but missing the point of the parent comments.
Also not abstract. To be ‘abstract’, a language must combine several objects ‘under one umbrella’. Depicting different things in the same notation is the opposite of abstract. YACCANL (Yet Another Cargo-Cult Abstraction Non-Markup Language).