• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:37:35 -0400

On 10 Jul 2001 14:14:59 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> But wasn't the XML DePH hacker argument precisely that we needed to make 
> things easy for a few thousand or so programmers?  Have we suddenly 
> decided that now we must make their lives harder rather than simply 
> using SGML?  Or is it possible we have a hard time admitting 
> XML is something of a fraud?  Ok, strong language... a weak imitation 
> of its parent for which this was not a problem except that it  
> it kept the implementation problem squarely in the hands of implementors.

Please, Len.

Recognize that most of the markup universe, even those of us who aren't
especially fond of the W3C, have no desire whatsoever to use SGML per
se.

Creative destruction and simplification is a necessary process.  We'll
go through this cycle again with XML at some point.  I don't see anyone
seriously expecting to return to SGML, except for a few folks who
already know SGML well.

Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: building an object model of a XML schema
• Next by Date: RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
• Previous by thread: RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
• Next by thread: RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread