• From: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <gtn@e...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:20:40 -0500

> >Again, if SML is designed solely to remove the "complexity" 
> from XML, then I think it is entirely misguided... [...]
> 
> Or rather, it is not just technically guided.  Complexity has 
> initial costs and recurring costs -- learning curves, 
> building apps on top of XML, time-to-market, revisiting old 
> problems, technical support, software maintainability, etc.

I don't buy the rationale that a new syntax is needed to address
the problems here. At the end of the day, the people who actually
*use* the systems built around XML should give a tinkers cuss
one way or another... it should be hidden from them.

The XML that is most important is the XML that can't be seen...



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...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: [SML] Whether to support Attribute or not?
    • From: Joe Lapp <jlapp@w...>

• References:
  • RE: [SML] Whether to support Attribute or not?
    • From: Joe Lapp <jlapp@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: [SML] Mapping between SML and XML
• Next by Date: A call for reason
• Previous by thread: RE: [SML] Whether to support Attribute or not?
• Next by thread: RE: [SML] Whether to support Attribute or not?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread