• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: SML: Second Try
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 09:42:59 -0800
• In-reply-to: <003201c2cdf9$ef2ade30$a800a8c0@SeairthA31>
• References: <003201c2cdf9$ef2ade30$a800a8c0@SeairthA31> <4827EC373E03DB44AC2AB3900430896B0265A7@w...> <p04330102ba680795618b@[192.168.254.4]>

Seairth Jacobs wrote:
> Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> >
> > Bottom line: the cost of creating alternate syntaxes or trimming XML
> > at this stage vastly outweighs the benefits that would be achieved.
> > Both these approaches are penny wise and pound foolish at best.
>
> This could have been said for the initial adoption of XML as well.  If
> people had listened to this arguement back then, we would still have only
> SGML...


SGML already supports multiple alternate syntaxes,
including XML.  In fact that was one of the problems
XML was intended to solve: the designers wanted a
*single* SGML profile suitable for use on the Web.

And, strictly speaking, we *do* still have only SGML.
An enhanced and extended SGML with a well-designed
canonical minimal profile, to be sure, but still
just SGML.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>
  • RE: SML: Second Try
    • From: "Owen Walcher" <news@o...>

• References:
  • Re: SML: Second Try
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>
  • RE: SML: Second Try
    • From: Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>
  • RE: SML: Second Try
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SML: Second Try
• Next by Date: RE: SML: Second Try
• Previous by thread: Re: SML: Second Try
• Next by thread: RE: SML: Second Try
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread