[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 9:27 AM -0500 11/25/03, Betty Harvey wrote:
>In dusting off my presentation for XML 2003 I have a slide that
>explains why we needed XML and the problems with SGML. This
>slide is very old (at least 6 years):
>
> SGML Problems
>
>. High initial investment
>. Complexity
>. Too many options/features
>. Vendors supported a subset of features
>. Applications weren't portable because of various feature sets
>. Lack of intuitive end-user software
> Fear of "pointy brackets" (<>)
>
>As I read this list and after my experiences with XML Schema - I ask
>myself where are we? About the only thing I think we can take off of the
>list above is the "Fear of 'pointy brackets'" and that is a result of
>HTML, not XML.
If you ask the question of XML, and not XML schema, then we're doing
much better. The only ones that you could even argue haven't been met
are "Too many options/features" and "Lack of intuitive end-user
software", but you could also argue the other way on those points. I
do think basic XML 1.0 has too many options, but I don't find the
problem crippling. And end-user software may have taken a little
while to get here but now it's popping up all over the place, even in
Microsoft Office.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
|
