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

Re: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:56:21 -0500
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE9E7@HQ5>

3/18/2002 10:15:25 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote:

>A long time ago on this list, I said, it's all just 
>markup technologies.  The MLisms barely matter now 
>except to assert which group of people control the texts of 
>the specifications.

I very much agree.  My stumbling attempts to argue that HTML didn't
owe that much to SGML were trying to make this point: it's the
markup meme that matters, not the details of one spec or another.
Re-reading the Ted Nelson piece that someone pointed to the other day
("Embedded Markup Considered Harmful") simply confirmed that feeling.

Many of our disputes here remind me of the "die heretic scum" joke ..
http://www.glowport.com/heavenhumor/reg38.html

• References:
  • RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Next by Date: RE: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Previous by thread: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Next by thread: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread