Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: WOPR – A markup for rich terminal reports

github.com

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: Show HN: WOPR – A markup for rich terminal reports

#11
post #7
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you decided to use XML as the basic format?

XML is a standard format for markup (e.g. HTML). When XML is used where it shouldn't (object serialization) it adds complexity. Here it signals that creating a report is as simple (or at least as standard) as creating HTML. What other format you had in mind?

>XML is a standard format for markup (e.g. HTML).

XHTML is maybe the most hated incarnation of HTML, and is no longer encouraged.

Re: Show HN: WOPR – A markup for rich terminal reports

#12

Haven't tried this. Just want to know -- what advantage does this give over using gnu plot with sixel output? I can see the advantage over tek 4010 (this could be dynamic). If this is static (again, haven't tried yet), with multiple pages, why not just use tek 4010? I also don't understand the admonish to use something other than xterm. What is the issue that was observed? Ratboy

this uses xterm, so it's more accessible to most users than the other alternatives you mentioned. also note wopr is not just about the graphs (like https://github.com/yaronn/blessed-contrib) but also about having a declarative format, and even consuming it with curl.

Re: Show HN: WOPR – A markup for rich terminal reports

#13
post #11
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XML is a standard format for markup (e.g. HTML). When XML is used where it shouldn't (object serialization) it adds complexity. Here it signals that creating a report is as simple (or at least as standard) as creating HTML. What other format you had in mind?

>XML is a standard format for markup (e.g. HTML). XHTML is maybe the most hated incarnation of HTML, and is no longer encouraged.

You can still write xml-compliant HTML; whether it's called XHTML or not is splitting hairs. You still get all the benefits of a very rich toolset for document preparation. I work on a site that makes heavy use of xslt and works with xml-compliant HTML as input/output.

Re: Show HN: WOPR – A markup for rich terminal reports

#15
post #7
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you decided to use XML as the basic format?

XML is a standard format for markup (e.g. HTML). When XML is used where it shouldn't (object serialization) it adds complexity. Here it signals that creating a report is as simple (or at least as standard) as creating HTML. What other format you had in mind?

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: WOPR – A markup for rich terminal reports

#16
post #15
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XML is a standard format for markup (e.g. HTML). When XML is used where it shouldn't (object serialization) it adds complexity. Here it signals that creating a report is as simple (or at least as standard) as creating HTML. What other format you had in mind?

[deleted]

IMO JSON is less readable for this kind of document. XML is more explicit (at the cost of being chatty) but it's actually good for markup. For example nesting is easier to visually manage with XML due to tooling and explicitness of closing tags.

JSON is good for smaller objects you normally use during coding where you do not want the format to get in your way. Here I actually do want a very explicit format as it's the main thing.

Re: Show HN: WOPR – A markup for rich terminal reports

#18
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>XML is a standard format for markup (e.g. HTML). XHTML is maybe the most hated incarnation of HTML, and is no longer encouraged.

You can still write xml-compliant HTML; whether it's called XHTML or not is splitting hairs. You still get all the benefits of a very rich toolset for document preparation. I work on a site that makes heavy use of xslt and works with xml-compliant HTML as input/output.

Maybe "SGML" would have been a better descriptor?
Post reply on HN