[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I don't need luck. Just Microsoft. The price is
good, the maintenance is fair. But it is a lot
easier to maintain then a system for which I must
inspect all the source all the time.
Once above one, all the interoperability problems
start. If we want true simplicity, there is a way. :-)
HTML works like that.
It's the tradeoffs of choice. XML has fewer than
SGML. That built a market. So sometimes choice is
bad?
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard@redhat.com]
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 09:36:50AM -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Of which I generally only need one... same as SGML.
So everybody agreed on an SGML implementation ?
Either choice is good or not, you cannot defend both. And as far as
I understood there wasn't that many SGML processor (especially for
a reasonable price) though people seems to have suffered long and
hard that each processors had his own set of "features".
So which one were you all using ;-) ?
Of course choice is good and the fact that you may need only one
is pointless ... well actually this open interesting questions like
price and maintainance. Good luck in this respect with such a viewpoint.
|
