SEX Embedding for XML
I invented the Ultimate Markup for XML, , which is an acronym for SEX Embedding for XML, where the latter SEX is itself the acronym for Symbolic EXpression, those parenthesized forms suggested when you curse your Lisp.
is a special technique that many XML developers practice in private, even though they may be too shy to talk about it openly. Most of them will not only refrain from having in the middle of an XML conversation, they will take active steps to avoid ever mentioning anything related to in conversations. Companies all of whose employees practice it may fire you at the first remark that implies it. Yet I can tell you they greatly enjoy this most gratifying technique, that helps their programming be smoother, their conversations get faster, and gives them a good feeling even when they're not involved in it anymore.
consists in taking a XML body previously deprived of SEX, sticking a in front of it, and delicately going back and forth in it, acting wherever a tag opens, licking away the angular brackets and replacing each of them with a gentle but firm opening parenthesis, all the while avoiding all closing tags and replacing each of them by a short closing parenthesis, until the very last closing tag is reached, at which climax it's the end of the session with (note that important last stroke that precedes and signals the end of ). Within the scope of , XML attributes are handled gently, proper keywords are used, and arguments are postponed the way they should.
That special trick will your not only make your XML conversations shorter; it can express powerfully and concisely things that are particularly boring to explain with the same precision without actually having SEX. Furthermore, instead of thinking about as a way of making some existing XML conversation better, you may think in terms of SEX permanently and practice it directly as SEX in Lisp, sidestepping the boring XML conversation altogether. If you use your Lisp boldly to transform your , you will be able to achieve great things while having great fun. But of course, even such a great tool of communication as Lisp will never achieve the same dramatically effective interchange as can only be achieved concisely and powerfully with a human tongue.
may make your XML life seem shorter, but much more enjoyable. It may introduce new dangers that do not exist without , and you may make many mistakes when having , especially in the beginning. But you can avoid the dangers with well-known safe programming practices, and you will get better at it as you learn.
You may insert an arbitrary forms of SEX anywhere you desire into your XML activities. Using a magic extension to your XML processes can really make your life more exciting. Even though you may only have alone, or with a limited number of partners, it will be extremely gratifying.
can also tremendously enhance your clerical work: when in a XML job the given was that LESS THAN
OF
FORTHERE
LESS
CHORES
ANDSOME MORE
you now have the option to change your job this way: (EXTRAS (MEAN (NO LESS THAN)
(MORE OF (GETTING (PAID FOR (BEING THERE))
LESS))) (WORKING CHORES AND)
SOME MORE)
I don't know which prospect is more tempting to you, but for me the choice is quite obvious: much less typing and much more fun thanks to at the workplace.
Now, so that the embedding be universal, so that may allow the insertion of arbitrary SEX objects including expressions that would be otherwise considered illicit or malformed in an usual SEX-shy XML context, so that for instance we may put an unmatched within another , we can insert the VIRILE attribute within the recipient SEX:
(do ((censored things)) (WITH "") 'AND (WITH "") )
Another solution that provides smooth insertion of arbitrary objects within a is to specify the expected length of the SEX in the beginning: (with-class (have ) (of 'steaming)). One problem with that approach is that when you touch the SEX, its length may change; more problematic when messing with human SEX is that when you're in the creative process of SEX, thinking about such trivial things as whether the length is right spoils or at least diminishes the liberated mindset that constitutes the joy of SEX. But these problems do not occur when using mechanical SEX, that is more robust. Of course, there's no reason not to be able to have it either or both ways, depending on the circumstances. Automated devices and other gadgets can thus enhance the way you do and restore the perfect feeling that comes with well done SEX; they are not replacement for human SEX, but a complement to it, an addition that allows you to go further.
And now, in your XML documents, instead of typing the tedious
xy that you must type in MathML (at best -- and I didn't invent it, at least not as bad as it ended up), you'll be able to just do the whole thing with and type (sin (+ x y)) instead; alternatively you may use and type sin(x+y), and similarly you may use and type x y + sin. Any of these tags make things much shorter and much more readable than they were in XML. However, SEX, like XML, has this advantage over MEX and RPN that it works well even in absence of a grammar definition (DTD, etc.): you can exchange SEX services with foreigners or be an intermediate in their SEX transactions without having to learn any of their foreign languages; SEX is a universal means of communication!
Remember: We know how syntax is prefix in Lisp, whereas FORTH has a postfix syntax and C's syntax is braindeadfix; well, the syntax of XML is a syntax that is a hardcorepornfix syntax: it does it in all places at the same time.