Talk:Markup language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former featured article Markup language is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Engtech.

Contents

[edit] older entries

The markup language we use for editing articles should be mentioned, but I don't know a name for it. --Error 23:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"wikitext" --Maian 10:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Markup language should discuss the difference between markup languages and programming languages. (Heh, I don't want to tackle that one alone, any takers?). I suggest the following comparison, though it might not be good enough:

Main Similarities:

  • List of variable names and contents. (i.e. <myvariable>hello world</myvariable> vs. myvariable = "hello world")
  • Input can be interpreted and perform a function. (i.e. vs. PRINT) It does it differently, in a markup language like HTML, 'variable names' are interpreted as functions by the browser, and in interpreted programming they're just functions that you type in, but the effect is the same.
  • there are "two views" -- the "source" view and the end-user's view (is there a better term for this? the "rendered view" ? the "runtime view" ?)
  • the "source view" of both a program and a marked-up document looks like plain text.

Main Differences:

  • Cannot modify variables within after it has been input.
  • No discrete mathematics.
  • No flow control:
    • No recursion.
    • No loops
    • No subroutines
  • No OO

That's all I can think of so far--Ben 09:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) slightly modified by --DavidCary 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] presentational vs. procedural

I'm not clear on the difference between presentational and procedural markup. For example, the article says that B is procedural, but I've never heard it classified it that way - I consider it presentational. What makes PRE presentational and B not? --Maian 09:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] presentational vs. procedural vs ...

Although "presentational" is not as common as "descriptive" and "procedural", it nevertheless has been defined and used in several ways over the years. Among them:

(i) rendering features such as "several newlines and spaces, thus accomplishing leading space and centering" (the definition text in this Wikipedia article);
(ii) the procedural markup that specifies such features
(iii) the descriptive markup that asserts such features exist in a particular rendition being described.
(And I think we can go after another sense, general declarative, as well, but I won't try that here).

It is true that today the use of "presentational markup" in sense (ii) is often heard, and so Maian's query is not so surprising. This article, like the Coombs, Renear, DeRose (CACM 1987) paper it cites, defines and then consistently uses "presentational markup" in the first sense (renditional features). There is just one slip I think, where it says: "The "i" instruction is an example of presentational markup. It specifies the exact appearance...". In the sense of "presentational markup" being used the HTML elements "i" and "b" are not presentational markup -- they are both procedural markup specifying presentational markup. There might at first glance appear to be another slip. Maian asks " What makes PRE presentational and B not?" Maian is I believe alluding to the article's statement that "...HTML also includes the PRE element, which encloses areas of presentational markup to be laid out exactly as typed." But a close reading confirms that the article is not asserting that PRE itself is presentational, only that it encloses markup that is presentational.

Given that "presentational markup" is now often used in the second sense as well as the first, what is best in this article? I prefer, strongly, the use in the current article; that is: sense (i), the renditional features themselves. For one thing we need that concept, and we have an established name for it, and published defended defintions, and literary warrant elsewhere in the literature, so let's stick with it. And the more common and very well-established term "procedural markup" works just fine for most of the uses to which "presentational markup" in the (ii) sense would be put.

There are some issues here though. When we wish to contrast "i" with "div" it is most natural to say that "div" is descriptive and "i" is procedural, as we have been taught for 25 years; with those terms thought of as contrasting terms partitioning the space of possibilities at least with respect to symbol based markup systems. I am sure that no one wants to replace the word "procedural" with "presentational" in that taxonomy. That would definitely be a bad idea. First because "descriptive/procedural" is still the most common terminology. And second because "procedural" is the classic and original term, promoted by Goldfarb (since who knows when) and an extended discussion of the distinction, expressed in those terms, is included as Annex A.1 of ISO8879, SGML.

Ok, here's the problem. What about procedural markup that does not specify rendition, but rather some other sort of processing (indexing, change notification, etc)? And what about descriptive (declarative) markup that describes rendition -- as when a physical bibliographer describes a title page? If the uneasiness underneath Maian's observation is that some but not all procedural markup is presentational and how should that be accommodated terminologicall ... that remains a problem in markup taxonomy. And the reason there has been pressure in favor of using "presentational" for "procedural" is that although not all procedural markup is presentational(ii), most of what we see around us in electronic publishing is.

Full disclosure: although I just stumbled upon this article so far haven't had a hand in editing it I am in fact a coauthor of the mentioned Coombs, Renear, DeRose CACM (1987) article where sense (i) of "presentational" is defined, so of course I am partisan. In addition I've written on the issue raised above: "The "Descriptive/Procedural distinction is Flawed." in Markup Languages: Theory and Practice, 2:4 2000. [I actually think that some of the (mis)use of "presentational", i.e. use of the term in the (ii) sense, started in the late 80s people hearing about our distinction second hand thought they could guess what we meant by it -- classic folk etymology, or folk semantics]

I'm new to wikipedia so let me know if this talk contribution is inappropriate in any way. -- Allen Renear 20:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] markup used in email and Usenet

Is there a name for the "formatting" common in plain-text Usenet posts and email? My understanding is that most lightweight markup languages are designed to look similar to it. There seem to be many articles that briefly mention it: ( Underline, Italic type, Word attachments, ...)

Is there a single article dedicated to it? (Or should it go into a section of an article -- perhaps in lightweight markup language?) --DavidCary 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Markup (computing) to this article.

I suggest merging Markup (computing) to this article as it appears to be a small subset. JonHarder 14:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edits re: proofreading symbols and "fonts."

I have added some text to the discussion of "markup men" to give the clarifying example of proofreaders' marks as an example of handwritten markup. Also, I deleted the reference to markup including indication of "fonts" during the historical period of "markup men." "Fonts" have only become a synonym for typefaces during the computerized typesetting era. Previously it was a unit of measure used by type foundries selling movable type. A "font" was a "useful" quantity of characters and sorts, and movable type was purchased by the "font." The precise amount of type varied by foundry and within a foundry's product line (e.g., a 10 text font would include far more pieces than 72 point display typeface. See Webster's Third and my longer discussion of this issue on the discussion page for Typeface.

Marbux

[edit] Why does semantic markup redirects to this article ...

... whereas descriptive markup redirects to nowhere? Just discovered that, while editing Semantic Web Services. There has been long discussions to know if markup languages, and singularly XML, were dealing with syntax only or if they add any semantics to the content. The section in the article about this issue is quite short, and it gives descriptive markup and semantic markup as synonyms. I'm not sure this is consensual and neutral. See e.g. here, and there. See also Semantic publishing. universimmedia 11:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PostScript?

I notice that PostScript is included as a markup language. I have never heard it called that: I wonder in what way it meets the definition of markup. There is no underlying stream of text which is intermixed with graphic operators. It is just a programming language with graphics primitives, in this sense is it more of a markup language than, say, a C program with the X-Windows library? Is there any source (citation) for this classification?Notinasnaid 19:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments, I've removed it. Notinasnaid 11:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the deletion. PostScript is a PAGE description language! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolcaesar (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/Talk%7EMarkup_language_d837.html"