SGML complexity (was: RE: [xml-dev] Re: Recognizing...)

[Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote:

> So the complaint is that SGML has a lot of features
> and buying a
> fully-conforming system is expensive?  I can't
> quarrel with that.  SGML
> systems were expensive and that was the real barrier
> to its adoption, not
> its complexity.  Does anyone really believe anymore
> that it was too complex
> or merely too complex for a Desperate Perl Hacker?

There is another side to the complexity, beyond the
question whether it's too complex to use. I don't
doubt that many DPHs (heck, perhaps even PHBs) would
be able to use SGML, as in manually write and debug
content marked up with it. Just like people write c++
code, despite complexity of the language.
But what I do doubt is that many developers would be
able to develop systems to process it. Like someone
already said it, writing an XML parser  is a
non-trivial task -- writing an SGML parser is a
10-year-backed-up-by-IBM kinda project, and ditto for
processing systems that make use of the features.
If I had to choose between task of writing an SGML
processor, or C++ compiler, I wouldn't know which one
would be less work.

Considering complexity of a processing system that
allows using the full power of SGML (which in the end
might give more power to the user), it's no wonder
systems were expensive. So thus perhaps SGML just
didn't and wouldn't offer that much more, to justify
the extra overhead all around?

Sometimes less is more,

-+ Tatu +-


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com