Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Richard Goerwitz wrote: > > The sooner we can all agree on another schema mechanism, the sooner we > can all stop trying to outfit XML with all the kludges that people have > already built onto SGML to make it useful in a modern, scoped, object- > oriented world. I agree for the most part. <rant>As one who also doesn't like to see one group try to get hegemony by taking out the prior group (sort of the imperialism the europeans used on the american indians and the HTML community used on everyone), I also admit a DTD comes up short when one starts trying to do things with it that neither it nor SGML were designed for. The SGML community realized this at least a decade ago and has been intensely involved in work to fix it. Let's face it, XML has concentrated most of that work in one domain and be glad for it.</rant> I think (just an opinion) the right way (morally and politically) to approach this is to say that as the environment has changed, and the demands on markup systems for applications not envisioned in the original designs of SGML have emerged, the requirements have changed. New capabilities have to be designed to meet the requirements. Stodgy as that may sound, it is an engineering approach to what is an engineering job. We will do well to be engineers and not try to crusade. Otherwise, we become like artists who also write critique: just politicians. len 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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 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...)
|
