Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Sean McGrath <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:35:53 -0500
The people are the same and the experience of
these people made the next step possible. The point is, it
didn't happen in a vacuum. People with lots of experience
had to get together and agree, and those agreements involved
some noisy mail. They based it on the work they had
done. If XSL had continued with Schema (the language),
it would have died on the vine. Some thought it should
have gone forward with that having seen the FOSI roast
on the pointy bracket spit, but in the end, it seems
they realized that it was better to roast it than let
Had XML not been a W3C project, it is likely
(if deRose could have gotten his pages and pages and
pages of changes in), it could have come from ISO. It
is hard to imagine how the barriers, real and political
that were being erected could have been torn down though.
Going to the W3C was the fastest way to go around the
Frankly, I would have preferred ISO but I saw the
personalities in action and knew that wasn't going
to happen. Don't ever tell anyone that a group of
saints created XML, just pragmatists. It comes
down to individuals. I repeat it for emphasis,
and folks, not always nice, courtly, ones. Sometimes
someone has to be BerserkerOnTheBridge and that is
not a job for a nice person. It is a job that
sometimes needs a hypeSter to clean up. Yet point
by point, nasty or nice, each paragraph gets hammered
into the final draft.
Abstract or concrete, by law, XML is a subset of SGML.
That was the compromise that made the deal possible.
XML changes no characters anywhere. It just makes
them the same everywhere. It is a bridge.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Sean McGrath [mailto:email@example.com]
At 09:09 AM 10/16/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>XML is SGML-lite. XSLT is DSSSL recast.
The former is true in the abstract but not in the concrete
as anyone who has tried to process XML with pre-XML
SGML tools will tell you.
The latter has no basis in fact that I am aware of other
than that they both share the same general approach.
The same could be said of a lot of acronym tuples
(GIF,BMP), (MP3,WAV) etc. I don't think it
If anything, XSLT is what you get if you take
the part of DSSSL that was never implemented and
re-engineer it from scratch.