OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: SV: [xml-dev] Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Parts and assemblies:  it's in the way that you use it.

But any tweaking of the alphabet has serious implications 
to that framework.  How long (John Cowan>?) has our 
standard western alphabet had 26 regular characters? 
The dictionary changes all the time.  So perhaps XML 
remains important and for those who want to play 
above that level, so does SGML.

Can one easily make XML less important? Why is XML 2.0 a low 
probability event?   To make it a high probability event, 
XML has to struggle to overcome its own success or do exactly 
what Tim et al suggested and go forward only by taking 
pieces out.  On the other hand, some assemblies could come 
unglued and that will be painful without planning.  

This is the flaw of extreme programming:  they may actually believe 
the simple thing will work and hold one to it.


-----Original Message-----
From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@netfolder.com]

What's important is no longer XML per se but what we do with it.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS