xml-dev - RE: ubiquitous XML?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

And I repeat, to replace them with what given 
that they are still a fundamental formal definitional 
tool for XML itself?

I'm not trying to irritate.  My problem here is 
we protest too much complexity and rapid change, 
then we ask for the actual foundation stones, 
as Jonathan points out, to be removed.   Before 
anyone should ever ask for or support such a 
suggestion, a very sound and very well worked-out 
replacement should be ready and it MUST not 
raise the bar even further on understanding 
XML such that at the other end, for all its 
completeness or algebraic beauty, only the 
propellor-heads have access to that understanding.

That would defeat the whole reason we started this.\
Better, as Erik Naggum used to point out, to just 
go straight to LISP.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h



From: Rick JELLIFFE [mailto:ricko@geotempo.com]
  
I love DTDs and grammars, both the idea of them and their practicality,
but they are the real "hangover" from SGML that we would do well to
jettison.