|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RELAX to ISO
At 08:37 AM 10/13/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >In order: > >1. No. A schema is still an SGML document. If >you use XML, you are using SGML. That disappoints >the "lunatic left wing fringe" of XML but that's >the way the documents read. But the kind and generous part of this is that you don't need to know anything about SGML proper to use XML, so there's no need to frighten developers with that four-letter acronym. I'm not sure XML would be enough to satisfy government procurement folks if what they _really_ wanted was SGML in all its glory, however true 'XML is SGML' may be. 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. I suspect that in most cases (excluding legacy-SGML-to-XML) the distinctions are more important than the similarities. 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. At best, it can illuminate a few details, but at worst it's an enormous distraction if XML is your primary interest. Maybe someday I'll run into an XMLer who cares deeply about SGML who hadn't used SGML before the advent of XML, but I've yet to find that creature. If that makes me lunatic left wing fringe, that's fine too. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








