• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture? (was RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?)
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:05:19 -0500
• Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>, xml-dev@l...
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4021BD057@u...> <1008872150.894.4.camel@l...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120

Simon St.Laurent wrote:


> (And of course, I'm deeply depressed that XML has become _more_ complex
> than SGML in many regards.)

Cheer up.  XML may not be layered perfectly, but at least it is
layered to some degree: schema langs above Namespaces above XML 1.0.
SGML was a bucket of bolts, with each application being able to
declare which parts it implemented, but no real layering.
We have *not* gone from bad to worse, really.

-- 
Not to perambulate             || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
    the corridors               || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose     || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel

• References:
  • 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...>
  • 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...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Goodbye to textual applications?
• Next by Date: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Previous by thread: Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture? (was RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?)
• Next by thread: Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture? (was RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread