[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: more grist
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Vegt, Jan" <Jan.Vegt@softwareag.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 09:51:45 -0600
I realize that. I defend and praise Steve
because I watched his struggle. He is a
very smart man and a very dedicated one.
We all benefit from his investment... more
than most know including probably, Steve.
I have a fascinating video tape of him
teaching my daughter to play piano.
Eliot knows his stuff. He is right on.
To be fair, we all knew XML would be only
as easy as the user was capable. XML in
the sense of well-formedness is easy, both
for the programmer or author. With every
part of it you have to learn (see David
Megginson's article), it gets a bit more
complex. Most of this isn't precisely
XML. It is learning about the XML
application vocabularies that have emerged
for handling XML documents, eg, XPath, XSLT,
and so on. In this respect, it is getting
harder than SGML because by the time SGML
was getting into this, HTML emerged and
the curve flattened out as the community grew.
So did the capability.
The "lie" was that distributed hypertext
could become world wide hypermedia and a portable
operating system for heterogeneous
platforms and stay simple. It can't.
XML is easy. <:/>, ?, & and so on and
off the DePH goes. But applying anything past
that is just as hard as applying equivalents
elsewhere. It coulda been LISP but...
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Vegt, Jan [mailto:Jan.Vegt@softwareag.com]
I absolutely agree.
Just for clarity sake I wasn't trying to be disrespectful to Steve ; only
stating my own ignorance.
Looking at that 'power of groves' discussion Eliot Kimber's comments [ 'XML
is easy as a big lie' strike me as dead on even today.