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

Re: SML: Second Try

• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: SML: Second Try
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 02:08:10 -0500
• In-reply-to: <GHEDLDCGLHKOAICLGHKGOEKDCAAA.news@o...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <GHEDLDCGLHKOAICLGHKGOEKDCAAA.news@o...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

On Thursday 06 February 2003 01:08 pm, Owen Walcher wrote:
> <religiousRightousness>Exactly.. and a big part of the problem.
>
> XML was supposed to simply be a human and machine readable markup language
> where anyone can define the tags, but the SGML people drove hard to get all
> their baggage into the XML specification (for backwards compatibility).
> Many of these "trade-offs" I have seen discussed here is because of all
> that baggage (IMNSHO). </religiousRightousness>

You know, it'd be great if people wouldn't make claims about what XML was 
supposed to have been, and about what happened during the process of defining 
XML. 

Most of the claims are at best historically inaccurate, and more often than 
not, unfair to the people that actually did the work.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SML: Second Try
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: SML: Second Try
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • RE: SML: Second Try
    • From: "Owen Walcher" <news@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Different kind of Editor
• Next by Date: Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Previous by thread: RE: SML: Second Try
• Next by thread: Re: SML: Second Try
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread