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

XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....

• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,"Williams, David" <DAVID.WILLIAMS@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:49:26 -0400

Len,

>
> XML 1.0 is.

This is the key point. Here is XML -- XML is itself simple. It _enables_ you
to be simple, but if you want to be complicated, go ahead.

Perhaps we should stop talking about the family of specs surrounding XML as
if they _are_ XML itself. That is to say, defining "XML in totality" is akin
to defining binary logic (simple) and defining the latest multiGHz Pentium
IV with a gazillion gates _as_ part of "binary logic in totality".

> The family of specs around it
> are not.  You can teach XML 1.0 in about
> half a day.  The rest can take three semesters
> and then a year of practice.  Once out of the
> simple instance, XML specs specify a system.
> Taken in totality, XML is now much harder
> then SGML and throwing the combined specs
> onto a floor would kill the first three
> rows of the audience.
>

-Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• References:
  • RE: almost four years ago....
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: SAX 2.0 Enhancement proposal (2nd Ed)
• Next by Date: RE: almost four years ago....
• Previous by thread: RE: almost four years ago....
• Next by thread: Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread