RE: RE: SGML On The Web
It's not the enemy by any means. It's a fact. It's a tool. Use it and be happy. I think if it has an enemy, it is XHTML. Most of the time, I tag to some XHTML requirements not from having studied XHTML, but because I've always been an end-tagger. I like completed parentheses. Understand, that at least in the MS frameworks, we could see a change of attitude where HTML is yetAnotherFormat and the web browser, just another app. If Office succeeds in subsuming all of XML, then it becomes the XML tool suite of choice for the casual MS XML developer. How the rest of the world will deal with such is to be determined, but I won't be surprised to see them following the MS lead. HTML was a nice way to get a big splash fast, and a heckuva good gencode solution for a browser. It isn't a way to replace an operating system and GUI and that is where marca steered the web off the rails. I agree with the bit about the attitude. Scared me then because it's first attempted victim was SGML and I knew XML wasn't a complete solution. Ok for what it did, but there were reasons to think it couldn't kill off the parent. That wasted time and effort. We still have been reinventing piecemeal and I see no end to that. Extreme leads to that. It is a natural course but in the end, I think the MSs of the world win because of it. len -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:55 PM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: RE: SGML On The Web Len writes: > Because of HTML, we have essentially a one client > world and most of what XML does well, works on > the client. The backend is middle-ware mediated > adaptors to what are mostly relational db servers. > So the action is in the access layer and the client. > The client is frozen in the "won't give up HTML > until they pry it from our dead cold fingers", > so that leaves the access layer. I think you're recapitulating the same mistake that I described in my previous message here, seeing HTML as the enemy, not as something of value separate from "more advanced" perspectives. There are an awful lot of Web developers who are quite frustrated by HTML. Working in HTML for any period of time, especially up close, leaves most developers wanting something more. We've had various solutions - Dynamic HTML, Flash, CSS, and XML. The ones which have caught on are the ones which integrate most easily with HTML - CSS and scripting in the forefront. While Flash is widely available, it's a fairly different toolkit, and I don't believe Flash is likely to take over the Web whatever Macromedia's press releases might suggest. XML appeared with a huge amount of attitude - "let's reinvent linking and styling" - and very little clear value to Web developers. Even apart from browser implementation issues, most Web developers never really got past why, and I don't think the XML community ever made a good effort at answering why. (I have tried, but don't always find my own answers convincing.) Some answers have proven useful over time, and tools like Cocoon and AxKit make it easier to demonstrate how XML can actually be useful to Web developers, but I still get a sense that the XML world sees the HTML world as a problem, not as an opportunity. Lots of people would like more than HTML - I think that explains a lot of the interest in XForms and SVG - but don't see much reason to reinvent the whole thing in XML's image. It's not simply a matter of bad kudzu.
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