• To: "'Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)'" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: RE: linking, 80/20
• From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
• Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:38:39 -0400
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B824@HQ5>

Hi Len,

Len said:
SGML just conflated well-formedness and validity. 
Otherwise, XML works the same way as SGML.  Both 
depend on external documents ultimately.

Didier replies:
I agree Len, and the next question would be then, why use XML if it is
as complex and less versatile than SGML?

I though that the xml framework would be consistent, coherent, that
generic modules could be re-used because, in my own mental structure, it
seems to reduce the cognitive load imposed to it and finally, the
benefit I got with XML is that no external documents are needed to
process an instance (i.e. a document). Boy, we're far from that!

Cheers
Didier PH Martin

• References:
  • RE: linking, 80/20
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XLink olden days
• Next by Date: Re: linking, 80/20
• Previous by thread: RE: linking, 80/20
• Next by thread: Re: linking, 80/20
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread