[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: My summary of the XML names threads
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: XML Everywhere <email@example.com>, xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:29:16 -0500
That's reasonable. SGML-capable companies
exist that can satisfy requirements based
on SGML competence. These companies
based on that competence are fully
capable of handling XML as well given that
XML is a conforming subset. The reverse
is not true for XML-only companies but that
is, as you indicate, by their choice.
As Tim Bray said,
"Lately, I have also been explaining that there is an SGML starter-kit
called XML, which is small, lightweight (I wave a printout of
the draft spec at them), easy to understand, and designed to work on
the web. But you still get data safety and constrained-authoring
because it's SGML."
I've no problem with that. Alternative SGML derivatives that
are more capable and also designed to work on the web are
always possible, do exist, and perhaps for some company or group wishing to
into a more competitive position, realistic. The XML tools wouldn't
work for these formats but the XML formats would work for those tools.
So only the non-SGML tool vendors and non-SGML developers lose.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: XML Everywhere [mailto:email@example.com]
This is the XML-dev list, not
the SGML-dev list. The vast majority
of us, although not as vocal,
won't go back to SGML, even
if it solves every last encoding issue,
bakes bread, and makes a mean martini.