[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>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.
<religiousRightousness>Exactly.. and a big part of the problem.
XML was supposed to simply be a human and machine readable markup language
where anyone can define the tags, but the SGML people drove hard to get all
their baggage into the XML specification (for backwards compatibility).
Many of these "trade-offs" I have seen discussed here is because of all that
baggage (IMNSHO). </religiousRightousness>
I am looking to make XML, with a set of rules to define structure, a way to
move out of the dark ages of programming. Web Services, if done correctly,
may make this possible. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to always be fixing
your code when someone wants to extend something you didn't need in the
first place?
It's all about interoperability.
my 2 cents
Owen
|
