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

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

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, vdv@d...
• Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:01:33 -0500

That's why the term "markup technologies" 
was introduced to this list some years ago 
and even became the name of a GCA conference 
until someone noticed it didn't sell as well. 
It keeps me from having to explain XML vs 
SGML vs GML vs DSR.

Nodes is nodes; properties is properties. 
The Groves guys had it right. :-)

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]

I'm also starting to discuss "markup" as technology, and citing basic
XML rules as the most interoperable.  XML has morphed into a marketing
term (and the power of raw markup, in many ways, forgotten), but the
underlying technology is still useful and worth promoting.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Next by Date: RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Previous by thread: Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Next by thread: RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread