[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread 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...
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
just SGML.
--Joe English
jenglish@flightlab.com
|
