[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: DTD formal syntax
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Murali Mani <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 11:18:44 -0500
Right, and SGML allowed for that by enabling
minimized productions. XML took an evolutionary
step backwards to optimize the process for a
particular constituency: the so-called DePH.
That decision according to those who self-selected
to make the decisions, was a means to sell
the product to an immediate customer. The
notion was that if you wanted SGML features,
you could go back to SGML. That was fallacious
because the colonization extent of the product
of the initial customer drives the availability
of features afterwards, to wit, XML doesn't
kill of HTML as some thought it would, but
it kills off SGML. That was a satisfactory
outcome for some and why the normative reference
to SGML was requested vociferously but denied.
Eventually the compromise that now exists
emerged and the options were conserved. Given
costs, these may not be realistic options,
but that is the way the market goes given the
early decisions of the self-selected group. The
problem is the behavior of self-selection
of those who choose choices and then the
choices can result downstream in behaviors
that make it difficult to revisit the early
decisions. For example, TREX now has a
low chance of being adopted unless software
for it becomes quickly available on the
Microsoft platform. Even then, because
that is a feature-rich environment, it may
not be noticed.
The message is not the medium.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@CS.UCLA.EDU]
Not sure if it is relevant --
XML document is a tree -- edit it as a tree, and you do *not* need any end
tags. End tags are there only for getting the tree out of the string.
I think I like to see the tree and not the start and end-tags.