Re: XML as salvage yard (was RE: James Clark: XML versusthe We
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:46:21 -0500 Liam R E Quin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > There are lots of good parts here, but I don't see the critical > > mass needed to do to XML what XML itself did to SGML. > > Right, I agree. In particular, incompatible changes to XML that are > proposed from time to time would do things like break people's > television sets, car engines, 'plane navigation, ipod-shoes, and > goodness knows what else. You'd need a _really_ compelling reason to > move to an XML 2.0 right now. That's not the proposal Liam. Leave the existing stack for those that need it. It serves a purpose. Some need its complexity as others needed SGMLs corner cases. Lets have something new and in addition along the lines of James blog entry usable by those who don't need the full stack in all its messy glory, hence simpler. -- regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
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