[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] re: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
Tim's technologies-that-matter seems rather focussed on mass market acceptence. SGML has very high and continuing penetration of the industries it was designed for (large sets of technical and reference documentation, batch-processed) and very little in industries it was not designed for (casual documents). That SGML does not "matter" in Tim's criteria is similar to saying that the commands to CISCO routers do not matter, because there is no mass awareness and other people use different systems. When you have the need for the commands, they matter :-) So if you are flying a plane, do the flight or operations manuals matter? If the aircraft manufacturers and airlines have adopted SGML (in some part because it was an ISO standard), does it matter? SGML keeps chugging away for the same kinds of uses it was good for 10 years ago: XML has allowed some nicer processing systems for marked-up documents, but has little to offer the people who had already successfully implemented SGML systems. Perhaps we can say "What matters to Tim Bray" is de-emphasizing SGML and emphasizing XML! It would be interesting to know what XML would have brought to Tim's OED project that SGML didn't have: is it just the ability to not have DTD validation (or would just having content models of ANY more often have done the trick?) How would XML Schemas, RELAX or Schematron or AF have altered things if they had been available then? But in any case, we don't need to accept Tim's branding exercise. XML 1.0 is SGML: ISO 8879:1996 specifically uses XML as an example. ISO standards work best when based on established technologies or industry profiles: so it is not a bad thing that XML development is undertaken by someone other than ISO. So if SGML does not matter, it just means that ISO standardization is not important in most cases, which is I hope is very true. From: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@m...> > Of course, in many senses, XML itself is "just" a "convenient transport > representation," with data coming from databases, generated from the state > of some process, or otherwise not existing natively as pointy brackets. I think we will see more of this kind of statement: soon the XML infoset will be deemed to exist independently of the XML document. Rather than markup languages being a discipline which challenges existing technology to include rich narrative content, local encodings and local datatype notations, and arbitrary annotations represented in plain text, XML will be dumbed down to be merely a serialization format for databases (i.e. the DBMS of the major corporate participants on the W3C, hungry to stick extra layers on their products to get sales). When what matters is defined as what has mass acceptence, we don't get democracy. > Of course, I think you knew this - but thanks for the leading question. (-: Of course, I don't agree at all :-) Cheers Rick Jelliffe (writing as individual, and definitely not mattering)
|
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
|