Lists Home |
Date Index |
Unless you use SGML in production, you don't
have any way of verifying that. Most of what
is XML is SGML As Practiced. SGML isn't that
tough to use; it is a bi*ch to program given
a system that attempts to implement ALL of
its features. Outside of SP, few tried that
and the problem became conformance.
Who lost complexity? Parser programmers.
Who gained it? Authors. Where is that
power coming from? Lexical unification.
Who gets to use it? Hackers.
The DEPH is an unskilled programmer.
XML is easy. SGML is easy. It is the
frameworks that have made both hard. In
other words, not markup, but markup systems
are complex and in that respect, XML has
not fared as well as SGML because the
simplification of a Draconian parse based
on the simplification of well-formedness
opened up portals to hell in the frameworks.
Add namespace processing to that and an overloaded
definition for identity via URIs, and you
have all the makings of sour mash.
"Mighty mighty pleasin', Pappy's corn squeezin's"
Depending on what classification of student
you teach, you may need some to make the
words go down easier.
From: J. David Eisenberg [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
I have been telling my XML classes that "XML provides 90% of the
power of SGML with only 10% of the complexity." I hope I don't have to
eat my words.