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

RE: InkML

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: InkML
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:14:02 -0400
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC814@h...>

clbullar@i... (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>Still, it shouldn't be that hard to steal 
>elements and attributes from other languages 
>that use the same types of content.  XML 
>is there to make it easy to steal, and 
>the consortia RF-policies are there to make 
>it legal. Crikey, the SGMLers did it with 
>complete abandon.  They even wrote standards 
>based on it (GML begat 28001 and HTML; 28001 
>begat the Canadian 28001 and the European 
>modular DTDs).  Why shouldn't XML?  Isn't 
>that what namespaces do? 

A long time ago I thought we were discussing the value or lack thereof
of lists of numbers and letters like:

1125 18432'23'43"7"-8 3-5+7  -3+6+2+6 8+3+6:T;+2+4:*T;+3+6+3-6:FF;

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

My point is that not using XML when you claim to be creating XML has
real costs that demand examination of whether using XML in the first
place is reasonable.  InkML appears to my eye to flunk this test with
flying colors.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

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

• Prev by Date: RE: InkML
• Next by Date: RE: InkML
• Previous by thread: RE: InkML
• Next by thread: RE: InkML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread