[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Historical I18n Note
- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:44:39 -0700
At 08:16 AM 16/07/01 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>This is easy. SGML preserves options using the SGML
>Declaration. The options have costs and require skill
>to handle. XML is simpler but it removes the options.
>In SGML, Blueberry is a non-issue
Sorry, Len has now said this about 8 times and just for
reasons of historical accuracy, I have to make the point
that i18n in the SGML context was not quite the bundle
of sweetness-and-light that's presented here. Anyone
who's ever tried to
(a) understand what an SDATA entity is, and/or
(b) take a file full of them produced by Vendor A and
try to figure out how to get them rendered on screen
or paper by software from another vendor
will know what I'm talking about. SGML handles these
issues *in principle* fully & completely by abstracting
away the notion of a character. SGML handled a lot of
issues in principle. XML's decision to say "a character
is an atomic unit of text as defined by Unicode, and you
have to support at least these 2 bit encodings" has less
abstract beauty but it's there for a reason, and it buys
a huge amount of real-world interoperability that no
previous markup-language system, including SGML, ever
came close to. -Tim