Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:13:21 -0500
> If SML parsers don't recognize attributes, then we can't have
> an SML-ized XHTML. Does anyone care? How about WML? I for one would
> care if WML was incompatible with SML ...
> How about XSLT? It would be nice if stylesheets to turn SML
> into something displayable were themselves parseable as SML. I'm pretty
> sure that you couldn't write a useful XSLT stylesheet without using
Now this is the kind of thing I find confusing. Don is saying the SML is
different from XML, and is designed to solve a different set of problems.
is it that it's never mentioned except in the context of XML, or it's tools?
Again, if SML is designed solely to remove the "complexity" from XML, then
I think it is entirely misguided... there is little ground in performance,
hardware restrictions to justify it, and for data interchange, where some
parts of XML *do* complicate things, application conventions would appear to
be more than sufficient... and at far less cost that bifurcating the XML
just as we're really starting to see interoperability between tools.
Sorry, but I still haven't seen a convincing rationale for SML...
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)