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

RE: SV: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"

• To: "'veillard@r...'" <veillard@r...>
• Subject: RE: SV: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:02:45 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

I don't need luck.  Just Microsoft.  The price is 
good, the maintenance is fair.  But it is a lot 
easier to maintain then a system for which I must 
inspect all the source all the time.

Once above one, all the interoperability problems 
start.  If we want true simplicity, there is a way. :-)
HTML works like that.

It's the tradeoffs of choice.  XML has fewer than 
SGML.  That built a market. So sometimes choice is 
bad?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard@r...]


On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 09:36:50AM -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Of which I generally only need one... same as SGML.

  So everybody agreed on an SGML implementation ? 
Either choice is good or not, you cannot defend both. And as far as
I understood there wasn't that many SGML processor (especially for 
a reasonable price) though people seems to have suffered long and
hard that each processors had his own set of "features".

  So which one were you all using ;-) ?

  Of course choice is good and the fact that you may need only one
is pointless ... well actually this open interesting questions like
price and maintainance. Good luck in this respect with such a viewpoint.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SV: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Next by Date: Re: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Previous by thread: RE: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Next by thread: Re: SV: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread