Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Marking up text with tags is what SGML does. That it did not excite you is interesting because that is what XML got from SGML. That the term does not please you is ok. It is accurate when most of the other uses aren't. The first time one has to make a relational system output marked up text, nodes and properties become very interesting. That was when the InfoSet finally became valuable to me: it is the XML system table. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Simon "St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 11:09 AM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len) Cc: vdv@d...; xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago.... On 15 Jun 2001 11:01:33 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > That's why the term "markup technologies" > was introduced to this list some years ago > and even became the name of a GCA conference > until someone noticed it didn't sell as well. > It keeps me from having to explain XML vs > SGML vs GML vs DSR. I've never really been pleased with that usage of "markup technologies". But then you probably remember that I've never been excited about SGML. I'm making a different distinction, retreating back to the fundamentals of what these tools do: marking up text with tags. The rest is, well, mostly gibberish. > Nodes is nodes; properties is properties. > The Groves guys had it right. :-) Not in my view. Marked-up text is a lot more interesting to me than nodes and properties. Funny how we can cross one division just to encounter another.
|
