Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture? (was RE: Why wou
On Thu, 2001-12-20 at 01:59, Champion, Mike wrote: > > Of course if you used � to encode NUL in text then that would not > > be an issue. But I dislike this because its not in line with SGML. > > FWIW, James Clark said in his speech at XML 2001 that we "should be free to > stab the SGML community, what's left of it, in the back" because it's now > more important to clean up XML's foundations than maintain SGML > compatibility. > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/12/19/jjc.html > > Stabbing in the back seems cruel, but what about a putting it out to pasture > for a dignified retirement ... Is it time to say "goodbye, Ol' Paint, you've > been a good pony" to SGML, and find a younger and sturdier mount for the > journey ahead? > > Or has Ol' Paint learned to smell the wolves lying in wait for us, and we > should keep him around? <grin> I've never been an SGML fan, and never likely will choose to use SGML, but I have to admit that there's more and more I'd like to learn about. There are lots of features in SGML I'd like to hear more about - and implement in layers _separate_ from DTD processing. I don't think SGML should be allowed to hold XML back - something I've said for a long while - but I certainly think it's worth taking a look at the pile of parts XML discarded to see what creative possibilities they hold in new contexts. (And of course, I'm deeply depressed that XML has become _more_ complex than SGML in many regards.) -- Simon St.Laurent "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
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