• From: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@xxxxxxxxx>
• To: xml-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:29:36 -0700 (PDT)

--- Len Bullard <cbullard@h...> wrote:

> How many of the original XML parsers were open
> source?  With all the noise
> this list makes about open source, are you telling
> me that keeping up SGMLS
> or its successor is just too difficult for the
> markup community?

I'm sure we will see it, when people interested in
recycling the old technology (or replacing SGML) start
using and developing it?

> I don't buy it.  As I said, this isn't a slam on
> XML.  XML is a Good Thing.
> This is a "if you plan to reinvent SGML anyway,
> maybe it's time to fess up
> to needing it and use it rather than making up
> stories to keep from
> admitting that perhaps it was also a good thing". 

Sure. For people who want more sophisticated (and
complicated) things built at language/markup level
(instead of application/business level), that's good
advice.

But I have no desire to reinvent SGML (or, as a
parallel, to use many of the more complicated xml
extensions on top of basic useful ones), or any of its
feature set, so I guess can not really comment much
more on the thread. Those who do, will have lots of
work to do, independent of which route they take,

For me, I think XML (or something simpler, if
anything) will do just fine,

-+ Tatu +-


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

• References:
  • RE: SGML complexity (was: RE: Re: Recognizing...)
    • From: Len Bullard