• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:31:18 +0000

On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:46:21 -0500
Liam R E Quin <liam@w...> wrote:

> > There are lots of good parts here, but I don't see the critical
> > mass needed to do to XML what XML itself did to SGML.
> 
> Right, I agree. In particular, incompatible changes to XML that are
> proposed from time to time would do things like break people's
> television sets, car engines, 'plane navigation, ipod-shoes, and
> goodness knows what else. You'd need a _really_ compelling reason to
> move to an XML 2.0 right now.

That's not the proposal Liam. Leave the existing stack for those
that need it. It serves a purpose. Some need its complexity
as others needed SGMLs corner cases. 

Lets have something new and in addition along the lines of James blog
entry usable by those who don't need the full stack in all its messy
glory, hence simpler.





-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML as salvage yard (was RE: James Clark: XML versusthe Web)
    • From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@g...>

• References:
  • XML as salvage yard (was RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XML as salvage yard (was RE: James Clark: XML versusthe Web)
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>