• From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@g...>
• To: Steve Newcomb <srn@c...>
• Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:57:36 +0000

On 23 March 2017 at 14:34, Steve Newcomb <srn@c...> wrote:
> On 03/22/2017 07:54 PM, Peter Flynn wrote:
>>
>> Given that hardly any automotive documentation is in XML (or even SGML)
>> any more ("too hard"), it's probably moot for this group, unless we want
>> to start a user-supported tractor-documentation project:-
>
>
> I would argue, smilingly, that Peter's "too hard" observation is on-topic.
> Dead center, even.  Is XML the future of XML?  Such a question can never be
> ruled out-of-order.
>
> If the XML community doesn't choose to respond to change, or even
> acknowledge it, it is moribund.  Adapt or die.
>
> Steve
>
> P.S.: SGML was "too hard", too.  The transformation into XML involved
> shedding features that, in retrospect, were solutions to problems that had
> once been considered compelling.


And that excludes a shift (for some?) to json Steve?

A call for a broader church perhaps?

regards



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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: bigger church? (was software lock-in)
    • From: Steve Newcomb <srn@c...>

• References:
  • Software lock in?
    • From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@g...>
  • Re: Software lock in?
    • From: Peter Flynn <peter@s...>
  • (was: Software lock in?)
    • From: Steve Newcomb <srn@c...>