[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread 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
> compatibility.
I think the choice of terms is a bit unfortunate, but if he had suggested
ignoring (rather than attacking with malice) the SGML community, I don't think
that I would have any problem with it. I'm well and truly from the SGML
community, but I feel that the efforts that have been made by XML to date to
keep the two in line have been both canny and considerate. There's no question
that XML now needs to be driven by self-interest, but I think that many SGMLers
can accept that without too many pangs.
> 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?
Perhaps it's more like deciding that the tasks at hand now seem to require
speed, so the Clydesdale will be sidelined except for tasks that suit it, and
we'll buy a new horse that's more nimble.
We still have a substantial number of customers who use SGML - once you have a
system that works, there's very little reason to change your data at the source.
If they need XML, they translate into it at the time. The fact is that legacy
data conversion into SGML is usually easier than conversion into valid XML, and
that won't go away.
--
Regards,
Marcus Carr email: mrc@allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Einstein
|
