• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
• From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:49:29 -0500
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcQnp8wBV/i9I5JjQsO3s7JUX10QwgABsCHQ
• Thread-topic: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?

Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@i...> writes:
> 
> So resurrect the SGML Declaration and enable everyone 
> to declare compact syntaxes for the application profiles 
> in the standard way.  Why not have the compact syntaxes 
> interoperate as well?

+10 ;-)

I still find myself reverting to defining new Word styles in the old GML
style I first learned before SGML came about.

> If we are to brandish big pointy sticks, maybe they 
> should be standard pointy sticks.  Or are all of the 
> arguments that led to the development of the SGML 
> subset suddenly moot in a trendy way?
 
Not sure the SGML declaration is a big pointy stick?  More like a
amorphous smothering blob that's really hard to get a handle on?

• Prev by Date: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
• Next by Date: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
• Previous by thread: RE: Readable syntaxes (was: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online)
• Next by thread: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread