Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
clbullar@i... (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes: >At least it is easy to see now how SGML became as >complex as it did over time. What doesn't get >put into XML shows up in the applications. It >will be fun as some of us get closer to retirement >and watch the next generation of "we can do this >simpler and better". > >Cars and jets never get simpler overall. Why >do people believe software should? In general, I don't expect it should. In this case, I think it's funny, because a group threw away all those features, claiming they were too obscure, and then reinvented them in a form that seems even more obscure. Reinventing the wheel is fine, as long as you come up with a better wheel. I think XML 1.0 (and perhaps XSLT 1.0) set a standard for improving wheels by simplification that hasn't been matched since. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
