[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:55:31 -0400
Bullard, Claude L (Len) >
>
> From: Amy Lewis [mailto:amyzing@talsever.com]
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:09:07AM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> >>Here's the rub: XML Is Not a W3C Success.
>
> >I disagree. Emphatically.
>
> Noted. ... XML is a victory for the markup community in that it proves
> by demonstration the principles of markup developed over many
> years and much effort. That community is considerably
> larger and older than the W3C individuals associated with the development
> of HTML and XML, and in many cases, are the same individuals.
>
But for HTML and XML, SGML would still be an arcane markup technology, and
markup technology would still be an arcane technology (and this is coming
from perhaps one of the rare individuals who have come to appreciate some of
the more esoteric but powerful SGML technologies having started from a
purely XML perspective). The other way to look at this is the view that data
is data is data, and the main value of XML is not anything specific to XML
or SGML but rather in the Metcalfe effect of XML as a common syntax.
Indeed, you were smarter than the rest of us (meant honestly), but for us,
XML was a huge success in demonstrating the value of Markup. ***
Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org
*** to my memory, the big debate before the advent of HTML and XML was
whether new medical records should be stored in the OpenDoc/Bento or OLE/COM
formats!
|
