[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I must have learned my history wrong. My understanding was that XML came
about as a simplified version of SGML to work for the web. It was no more a
replacement for HTML than a brush and canvas is a replacement for a
painting. People saw the value of bringing SGML to the web, but obviously
felt there was a lot of baggage that needed to be left behind. To my eyes,
this is no different an argument than people are now making for XML.
---
Seairth Jacobs
seairth@seairth.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
To: "'Seairth Jacobs'" <seairth@seairth.com>; "xml-dev"
<xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] SML: Second Try
> You would still have only HTML.
>
> The work to put SGML on the web in a
> standard form would have continued in ISO.
>
> len
>
>
> From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:seairth@seairth.com]
>
> From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
> >
> > Bottom line: the cost of creating alternate syntaxes or trimming XML
> > at this stage vastly outweighs the benefits that would be achieved.
> > Both these approaches are penny wise and pound foolish at best.
>
> This could have been said for the initial adoption of XML as well. If
> people had listened to this arguement back then, we would still have only
> SGML...
>
|
