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

Re: Goodbye to textual applications?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Goodbye to textual applications?
• From: Andrew Kuchling <akuchlin@m...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:53:32 -0500
• In-reply-to: <200112201636.IAA25760@d...>
• Mail-followup-to: akuchlin, xml-dev@l...
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4021BD057@u...> <200112201636.IAA25760@d...>
• Reply-to: akuchlin@m...
• User-agent: Mutt/1.3.24i

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:36:42AM -0800, Joe English wrote:
>XML's original requirement of compatibility with SGML has
>served its purpose.  At this point SGML, if it is to survive,
>needs to worry about compatibility with XML.

But is a DTD-less XML still good for writing up novels and recipes?
DTDs provide just about the right level of strictness for textual
data, where ordering of elements is often all that you need and the
readability of the schema matters.  I'm a bit concerned that dropping
DTDs will mean the end of such applications.  If you take away DTDs,
what is there to replace them?  XML Schema, which is less readable and
provides a lot of data types that aren't useful to a textual
application?

--amk

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Goodbye to textual applications?
    • From: Adam Turoff <ziggy@p...>
  • Re: Goodbye to textual applications?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: Goodbye to textual applications?
    • From: Amy Lewis <amyzing@t...>

• References:
  • Time to put SGML out to pasture? (was RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?)
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
  • Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture?
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Next by Date: Re: Supporting Unicode
• Previous by thread: Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture?
• Next by thread: Re: Goodbye to textual applications?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread