RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....

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

Marking up text with tags is what SGML does. 
That it did not excite you is interesting 
because that is what XML got from SGML. 
That the term does not please you is 
ok.  It is accurate when most of the 
other uses aren't.

The first time one has to make a 
relational system output marked 
up text, nodes and properties become 
very interesting.  That was when the 
InfoSet finally became valuable to 
me:  it is the XML system table.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon "St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 11:09 AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: vdv@dyomedea.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....


On 15 Jun 2001 11:01:33 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> That's why the term "markup technologies" 
> was introduced to this list some years ago 
> and even became the name of a GCA conference 
> until someone noticed it didn't sell as well. 
> It keeps me from having to explain XML vs 
> SGML vs GML vs DSR.

I've never really been pleased with that usage of "markup technologies".
But then you probably remember that I've never been excited about SGML.

I'm making a different distinction, retreating back to the fundamentals
of what these tools do: marking up text with tags.  The rest is, well,
mostly gibberish.

> Nodes is nodes; properties is properties. 
> The Groves guys had it right. :-)

Not in my view.  Marked-up text is a lot more interesting to me than
nodes and properties.  Funny how we can cross one division just to
encounter another.