• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Time to put SGML out to pasture? (was RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?)
• From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:59:45 -0500

> 
> Of course if you used � to encode NUL in text then that would not
> be an issue. But I dislike this because its not in line with SGML.

FWIW, James Clark said in his speech at XML 2001 that we "should be free to
stab the SGML community, what's left of it, in the back"  because it's now
more important to clean up XML's foundations than maintain SGML
compatibility. 
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/12/19/jjc.html 

Stabbing in the back seems cruel, but what about a putting it out to pasture
for a dignified retirement ... Is it time to say "goodbye, Ol' Paint, you've
been a good pony" to SGML, and find a younger and sturdier mount for the
journey ahead?  

Or has Ol' Paint learned to smell the wolves lying in wait for us, and we
should keep him around? <grin>

 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture? (was RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?)
    • From: Marcus Carr <mrc@a...>
  • Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture? (was RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture?
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Supporting Unicode (was Some comments on the 1.1 dr aft)
• Next by Date: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Previous by thread: RE: Supporting Unicode (was Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
• Next by thread: Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread