Re: SGML and XML
At 01:18 AM 11/27/97 +1100, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >> From: Simon St.Laurent <SimonStL@c...> >> I gave a seminar >> two weeks ago in Washington DC to the ACM ... >> ... Every time I brought up >> SGML (in connection with XML, CSS, and the DOM), I was greeted with questions >> about "is that really necessary?" "Are those SGML people trying to change >> _our_ world?" These questions didn't just come from the HTML beginners; many >> of them came from the developers who had worked with SGML, some quite >> extensively. At lunch the discussion quickly turned to XML, and I had to do a >> lot of convincing to get people 'past' SGML. > >However, I do think that a lot of the antagonism against SGML is actually >antagonism against the standard ISO 8879 (which is not intended to be remotely >entry-level or novice-friendly) mixed with antagonism against the early HTML >DTDs (which were overly-complicated, IMHO, in structure for their readerships, >as it turned out). I would tend to disagree. I have talked to a number of people who are antagonistic against SGML because the standard is so complicated. The fact that it takes a book that large to really give an implementor enough information to build a parser says something. As does the fact that SP is roughtly 1Mb compiled. There are reasons for all of this, but people tend to avoid things which take too long to understand, and react adversely when they are forced to use something which they don't understand. Part of the problem falls back to the tools, but if the initial standard had been more directed to a specific audience, then the tools would have been easier. Generality has its pros and cons. SGML was so general that it was extremely complicated and only the determined could wade through the initial waves of confusion. Thus there were very few people who 'understood' this SGML thing, so organizations trying to use SGML had to get by with people who "didn't get SGML," and as a result had a horrid time at it. Thus there are a number of people who think SGML is "a bad thing" because 3/4 projects using it crashed and burned... (the preceeding figure is purely random. I personnaly have watched a number of projects fail, but I claim no knowledge of a general success/failure rate....) This is not to say SGML is a bad thing. SGML is based on some extreemly sound ideas, which are real driving requirements in a number of industries. (otherwise SGML would have been dead a long time ago) XML (hopefully) is the necessary compromises to get SGML used in more of the cases where it can really provide benefit. -derek Derek E. Denny-Brown II || ddb@c... "Reality is that which, || Seattle, WA USA when you stop believing in it, || WWW/SGML/HyTime/XML doesn't go away." -- P. K. Dick || Java/Perl/Scheme/C/C++ xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format