[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: RELAX to ISO

• From: Dylan Walsh <Dylan.Walsh@K...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:21:48 +0100

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

"The distinction is still useful in contexts where SGML
features matter - and in contexts where SGML's extra features are seen as a
burden rather than a blessing"

and

"Yes, I own the SGML Handbook.  No, I don't recommend that XML developers
read it. They don't need it, and they _shouldn't_ need it."

For us XML developers, who don't need to read the SGML Handbook, what are
these extra features of SGML over XML, that are sometimes seen as a
blessing? My *impression* is that while SGML is more complicated (esp. its
DTDs), fundamentally you can express the same information in XML, and XML is
SGML without the cruft. I admit that I have formed that impression as
someone whose information on SGML comes solely from learning about XML, and
who has never worked with SGML directly (not counting HTML, an SGML app).

Maybe it is a mistaken impression. However I've never seen any big XML vs.
SGML debates, or any disgruntled SGML'ers flaming XML. Are we newbies
missing out on some of the merits of SGML? Would there ever be a case where
someone starting a brand new project today, with no need for any legacy
support, would choose to use SGML over XML, because of some of the culled
functionality is useful/needed?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RELAX to ISO
    • From: Marcus Carr <mrc@a...>
  • Re: RELAX to ISO
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: standards body parallel
• Next by Date: re: SAX app
• Previous by thread: Re: RELAX to ISO
• Next by thread: Re: RELAX to ISO
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread