• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "B. Tommie Usdin" <btusdin@m...>
• Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:32:48 +0000

On 01 Jun 2001 12:00:36 -0400, B. Tommie Usdin wrote:
> SGML's child, XML, is certainly larger,

Ouch!  I guess if the XML 'family of specifications' is XML, that's sad
but true.

> louder, and more charismatic. 
> But SGML is not dead.

Those are much more appealing statements!

• References:
  • Re: Off-Topic: RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Off-Topic: RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
    • From: "B. Tommie Usdin" <btusdin@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Off-Topic: RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
• Next by Date: SV: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
• Previous by thread: Re: Off-Topic: RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
• Next by thread: Re: Off-Topic: RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread