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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] SML: Second Try

[ 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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
To: "'Seairth Jacobs'" <seairth@seairth.com>; "xml-dev"
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...


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

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