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

RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not c

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 11:59:14 -0400
• In-reply-to: <000001c23bbf$f91a7c10$6401a8c0@didierhome>
• References: <4.2.0.58.20020804085801.0181f058@p...>

At 10:05 AM 8/4/2002 -0400, Didier PH Martin wrote:
>If we where thinking to address their needs and provide good tool (I
>mean something more sophisticated than parsers) then we would probably
>get a positive response. I am wondering if the community is not like the
>guys who where telling me that the mainframe terminal where doing the
>same thing as my Xerox dorado station.

I think that's completely the wrong answer, and precisely the path that has 
led us to such a dire position.

My point is that adding shiny new features to the overall notion of XML, 
whether or not they happen to help developers, has produced grotesque bloat 
and a set of tools that now makes SGML look svelte.

I would much rather abandon the effort to address such needs generically 
with XML by creating new "XML" tools and standards and leave developers to 
solve their information exchange problems using local solutions.

Stop at the parser.  Let communities with needs beyond the parser build 
their own toolsets, and _don't call it XML_.


Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• References:
  • RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Next by Date: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Previous by thread: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Next by thread: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread