• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>,Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>,"'Xml-Dev'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: SML: Second Try
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:15:21 -0500
• In-reply-to: <p04330102ba680795618b@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <4827EC373E03DB44AC2AB3900430896B0265A7@w...><4827EC373E03DB44AC2AB3900430896B0265A7@w...>

At 07:41 AM 2/6/2003 -0500, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

>3rd Option: Do nothing. Leave XML as it is. It works. It's proven. It's 
>not perfect, but it's damn good, and hits a really nice middle point 
>between the needs of many different communities. Don't trim it. Don't 
>create alternate syntaxes. Just use it.
>
>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.

I agree.

Even if we had an SML that were significantly simpler than XML, living in a 
world with both SML and XML is more complex than living in a world with 
just XML.

Jonathan 

• References:
  • 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