• From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>
• To: Don Park <donpark@d...>
• Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:25:11 -0600

Don Park wrote:
> 
>  Second, is it not true that XML derailed SGML?

Not really.  I got a phone call yesterday from someone 
about to bid on a very lucrative contract that specified 
SGML and precluded XML specifically.  Some still see it 
as the more powerful choice and spend their dollars 
accordingly.  It mystified me, but that was the way 
the RFP read.

len


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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: Feeling good about SML
    • From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Feeling good about SML
• Next by Date: RE: Feeling good about SML
• Previous by thread: Do SGML and XML co-exist? (was Re: Feeling good about SML)
• Next by thread: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread