Lists Home |
Date Index |
Seairth Jacobs wrote:
> Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> > 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 already supports multiple alternate syntaxes,
including XML. In fact that was one of the problems
XML was intended to solve: the designers wanted a
*single* SGML profile suitable for use on the Web.
And, strictly speaking, we *do* still have only SGML.
An enhanced and extended SGML with a well-designed
canonical minimal profile, to be sure, but still