Lists Home |
Date Index |
Champion, Mike wrote:
> FWIW, James Clark said in his speech at XML 2001 that we "should be free to
> stab the SGML community, what's left of it, in the back" because it's now
> more important to clean up XML's foundations than maintain SGML
> Stabbing in the back seems cruel, but what about a putting it out to pasture
> for a dignified retirement ... Is it time to say "goodbye, Ol' Paint, you've
> been a good pony" to SGML, and find a younger and sturdier mount for the
> journey ahead?
I consider myself a member of what's left of the SGML
community, and I fully support James' idea.
XML's original requirement of compatibility with SGML has
served its purpose. At this point SGML, if it is to survive,
needs to worry about compatibility with XML.