Re: Blueberry/Unicode/XML

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

I find myself wondering about the cockroach character sets
and its represention in Unicode, as well as the input devices
(and methods) that will work with those tiny little feelers.

Aaargh!

Too bad it looks like when SETI succeeds, we'll have to
abandon Unicode ... :)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>; "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>;
<xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: Blueberry/Unicode/XML


> 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.
>
> Len
> http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
>
> Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
> Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
>
> 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.
>