[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: XML and SGML
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Marcus Carr <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Rod Davison <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 08:28:52 -0500
Anyone familiar with the mil manuals of the
period, the indexing such as structures for callouts,
reference designators, the 87269 DB structures for
IETMs knows SGML is about information capture in
general, not just documents. The topic of what is
a document kept coming up and has been satisfactorily
answered in the literature. It was at its most interesting
when implementors and designerd began to store SGML
in relational DBs and discovered the problems of
crushing rich structures into table structures. It
worked but it was awkward.
>>Rod Davison wrote:
>> SGML is designed for documention.
That's another Myth Of XML... SGML is more flexible, not less.
SGML is the parent, the superset, and has more power than XML.
The software cost more and so did the ad campaigns.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Marcus Carr [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
While I agree with the rest of what Rod wrote, I think that the definition
might be a bit too narrow - I'd say that SGML was designed for information