[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Monday 10 February 2003 02:40 am, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> The value of that fluff is that it prevents us, just as much as the
> separation of presentation and content, from being reliant on proprietary
> tools. Fluff is king. It is the fluff that makes XML useful even at the
> cheap end of town: you can successfully work with quite large document
> sets, multiple people commenting on documents, and hand-tune the rendered
> output all with just vanilla text editor and the file system, as years of
> SGML/XML have proven. Take away XML's utility at the cheap-end, and you
> lessen its ubiquity and therefore usefulness at the high-end too.
A spoonful of syntactic sugar as it were... I agree. It's like leaving little
extensibility routes in DTD's/schemas that give people enough flexibility to
do what they want in the way of tweaks, in a fairly structured way.
Most of the "misfeatures" people debate in xml-dev were at least as hotly
debated during the development of XML. The things that are left are the
things that people cared deeply about, and more than likely still do, and for
good reason. That was hardly "SGML people drove hard to get all their baggage
into the XML specification" when "XML was supposed to simply be a human and
machine readable markup language where anyone can define the tags".
I personally think it's all the *other* stuff that really makes things
messy...
|
