[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
clbullar@ingr.com (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>At least it is easy to see now how SGML became as
>complex as it did over time. What doesn't get
>put into XML shows up in the applications. It
>will be fun as some of us get closer to retirement
>and watch the next generation of "we can do this
>simpler and better".
>
>Cars and jets never get simpler overall. Why
>do people believe software should?
In general, I don't expect it should. In this case, I think it's funny,
because a group threw away all those features, claiming they were too
obscure, and then reinvented them in a form that seems even more
obscure.
Reinventing the wheel is fine, as long as you come up with a better
wheel. I think XML 1.0 (and perhaps XSLT 1.0) set a standard for
improving wheels by simplification that hasn't been matched since.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
