[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>, Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>,email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:54:59 -0500
I'd bet if they could find a computer to run it,
the cockroaches' copy of SP would still be working
and both SGML and XML would tell them why they
were the only sentient entities who still care.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> OTOH, I stand by the comment below. For the
> long haul, SGML is a safer better bet. Safety and convenience
> are sometimes uncomfortable bedfellows as anyone who keeps
> secure data on a Palm unit they leave at the airport finds out.
Len, you certainly are entitled to your opinion. At the end of the day, the
most significant advantage(IMHO) that XML has _over_ SGML, is that XML is
defined in EBNF. Let me say it again: XML is defined in EBNF. The importance
of this must be understood.
In terms of longevity: how many working copies of SGML parsers do you expect
to be available 10 years from now? Who do you expect is willing to write new
SGML parsers for new platforms such as .NET, i.e. in languages such as C#,
or Python (or Java for that matter)? What makes SGML so safe a bet ... that
it is an ISO standard? There is a long long long long way to go from reading
the ISO standards to producing software that is capable of processing SGML.