Re: OPES Rules Language

General agreement with Alex except on his restriction and added need below.

At 16:41 09/06/2005, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>On Wed, 2005/06/08 (MDT), <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I'm going to give the rules language a shot by trying to author
>>a draft that merges the best of P and Sieve.  Simple semantics
>>and rich matching,
>
>Will you extend Sieve? In other words, will your language be a
>Sieve extenstion, following Sieve extension requirements?
>
>Will you make your language specific to HTTP adaptations?
>Or will it have modules/libraries/extensions/whatever for
>each application protocol being adapted (HTTP, SMTP, etc.)?
>
>>with control points tailored to the OPES architecture.
>
>Do you mean points where adaptation is triggered? For
>example pre/post-cache and request/response path in
>caching HTTP proxies? If not, please ignore the paragraph
>below.
>
>In my limited experience with ICAP configurations, and based
>on the "application agnostic core" principle, there may be
>no need for explicit control points. The control point can
>(should?) be an external to the language matter. The language
>does not have to depend on the message processing "point"
>where the adaptation is triggered. And IIRC, OPES architecture
>only provides examples of possible control points.

Some difficulty to understand how you trigger the adaptation then?
Or we do not speak of the same thing?

>>Send your wish lists.
>
>My wish list can be easily derived from the Sieve versus P
>comparison I have posted some time ago. I want all the good
>features that made the basis for that comparison :-).

Idem.

Due to the interest of this I would like to use the language to see how to 
amalgamate it in a Context Reference Center command system. This means that 
I will replace every word of the language by a numeric value permitting to 
translate it in any language. The call out server will be a CRC permiting 
to call on common contextual references to document or translate the 
content of a text/page/mail.

So, I am interested that nothing in the language depends on the 
value/structure of the used terms.

I currently use a moke-up in ASCII using Perl like variable. FYI the intent 
is to document the solution for second week of August to support a language 
description ISO (ISO 639-4) standard proposition. Thank you for your help.
jfc