• From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@i...>
• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 10:37:57 +0100

> Gak, what a thought.  Can we really use tools that differ by
> a complexity of 100 from other tools?  Consider the idea of
> a programming language 100 times simpler than C, or 100 times
> more complex than Standard C++.  Can the mind really grasp
> such a thing?

Remember PL/I? (My mind couldn't grasp it, but I guess others could).

The SQL 1986 standard was 104 pages long. The 1992 standard was 607 pages. I
don't have a final copy of SQL3 but my draft copy (a couple of years old) is
1270 pages.

What's the ratio for XML:SGML?

Mike Kay

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: Re: Topic Navigation Maps...
• Next by Date: Re: Lotsa laughs
• Previous by thread: RE: Weighing in on XSL / Standards
• Next by thread: Re: Weighing in on XSL / Standards
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread