Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
- From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@STJUDE.ORG>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:49:29 -0500
- Cc: <email@example.com>
- Thread-index: AcQnp8wBV/i9I5JjQsO3s7JUX10QwgABsCHQ
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
Bullard, Claude L (Len) <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> So resurrect the SGML Declaration and enable everyone
> to declare compact syntaxes for the application profiles
> in the standard way. Why not have the compact syntaxes
> interoperate as well?
I still find myself reverting to defining new Word styles in the old GML
style I first learned before SGML came about.
> If we are to brandish big pointy sticks, maybe they
> should be standard pointy sticks. Or are all of the
> arguments that led to the development of the SGML
> subset suddenly moot in a trendy way?
Not sure the SGML declaration is a big pointy stick? More like a
amorphous smothering blob that's really hard to get a handle on?