Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I agree with that. Keep in mind what was not available when SGML was designed and how much convergence XML could pick up for free that SGML users had to bake in via the SGML. Then the difference between invention and adaptation, necessity and convenience is manifestly clearer. Other aspects such as well-formedness were already part of fielded SGML systems if not conformant systems, and over time, we are finding the shortcomings of that approach have made it necessary for new technical innovations (xml: namespaces) to become more complex. Even informally deprecating formal public identifiers is not a universally accepted practice. One can say as some have including me that SGML made it easier for authors and XML for programmers. That is mostly true. However, without a good grounding in the state of the industry when these were spec'd, it is misleading. Yes, as Gavin said, fixed SGML Declarations were de rigeur for the owners of SGML application languages (eg, MIL IETMs), but we still had to tweak them locally. So the flexibility had advantages. If that was "too hard", we hired smarter developers because contracting for smarter users was not, nor ever is, an option. The biggest problem in attempting to make SGML go away is that now XML has to work for non-Web and Web systems. It is as if, tired of the food, pirates made the cook walk the plank before they determined if anyone else knew how to cook on a rolling ship in a storm. It is a hard job to bake one meal for all crews and passengers. In fact, somewhat impossible if pleasing them all is a goal. len From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...] At the end of the day XML's main technical contribution may turn out to have been that it dragged Unicode into the mainstream. -Tim
|
