RE: ubiquitous XML?
And I repeat, to replace them with what given that they are still a fundamental formal definitional tool for XML itself? I'm not trying to irritate. My problem here is we protest too much complexity and rapid change, then we ask for the actual foundation stones, as Jonathan points out, to be removed. Before anyone should ever ask for or support such a suggestion, a very sound and very well worked-out replacement should be ready and it MUST not raise the bar even further on understanding XML such that at the other end, for all its completeness or algebraic beauty, only the propellor-heads have access to that understanding. That would defeat the whole reason we started this.\ Better, as Erik Naggum used to point out, to just go straight to LISP. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h From: Rick JELLIFFE [mailto:ricko@g...] I love DTDs and grammars, both the idea of them and their practicality, but they are the real "hangover" from SGML that we would do well to jettison.
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