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

Re: SML: Second Try

• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: SML: Second Try
• From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>
• Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:07:53 -0500
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACEC4@h...>

I must have learned my history wrong.  My understanding was that XML came
about as a simplified version of SGML to work for the web.  It was no more a
replacement for HTML than a brush and canvas is a replacement for a
painting.  People saw the value of bringing SGML to the web, but obviously
felt there was a lot of baggage that needed to be left behind.  To my eyes,
this is no different an argument than people are now making for XML.

---
Seairth Jacobs
seairth@s...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
To: "'Seairth Jacobs'" <seairth@s...>; "xml-dev"
<xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:15 AM
Subject: RE:  SML: Second Try


> You would still have only HTML.
>
> The work to put SGML on the web in a
> standard form would have continued in ISO.
>
> len
>
>
> From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:seairth@s...]
>
> From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@m...>
> >
> > Bottom line: the cost of creating alternate syntaxes or trimming XML
> > at this stage vastly outweighs the benefits that would be achieved.
> > Both these approaches are penny wise and pound foolish at best.
>
> This could have been said for the initial adoption of XML as well.  If
> people had listened to this arguement back then, we would still have only
> SGML...
>

• References:
  • RE: SML: Second Try
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Vocabulary - Environmental Sampling Data
• Next by Date: Re: SML: Second Try
• Previous by thread: RE: SML: Second Try
• Next by thread: RE: SML: Second Try
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread