[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:15:42 -0400
At 08:37 AM 10/13/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>In order:
>
>1. No. A schema is still an SGML document. If
>you use XML, you are using SGML. That disappoints
>the "lunatic left wing fringe" of XML but that's
>the way the documents read.
But the kind and generous part of this is that you don't need to know
anything about SGML proper to use XML, so there's no need to frighten
developers with that four-letter acronym.
I'm not sure XML would be enough to satisfy government procurement folks if
what they _really_ wanted was SGML in all its glory, however true 'XML is
SGML' may be. The distinction is still useful in contexts where SGML
features matter - and in contexts where SGML's extra features are seen as a
burden rather than a blessing. I suspect that in most cases (excluding
legacy-SGML-to-XML) the distinctions are more important than the similarities.
Yes, I own the SGML Handbook. No, I don't recommend that XML developers
read it. They don't need it, and they _shouldn't_ need it. At best, it can
illuminate a few details, but at worst it's an enormous distraction if XML
is your primary interest.
Maybe someday I'll run into an XMLer who cares deeply about SGML who hadn't
used SGML before the advent of XML, but I've yet to find that creature. If
that makes me lunatic left wing fringe, that's fine too.
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
