[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] SGML complexity (was: RE: [xml-dev] Re: Recognizing...)
- From: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: xml-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
--- Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> How many of the original XML parsers were open
> source? With all the noise
> this list makes about open source, are you telling
> me that keeping up SGMLS
> or its successor is just too difficult for the
> markup community?
I'm sure we will see it, when people interested in
recycling the old technology (or replacing SGML) start
using and developing it?
> I don't buy it. As I said, this isn't a slam on
> XML. XML is a Good Thing.
> This is a "if you plan to reinvent SGML anyway,
> maybe it's time to fess up
> to needing it and use it rather than making up
> stories to keep from
> admitting that perhaps it was also a good thing".
Sure. For people who want more sophisticated (and
complicated) things built at language/markup level
(instead of application/business level), that's good
advice.
But I have no desire to reinvent SGML (or, as a
parallel, to use many of the more complicated xml
extensions on top of basic useful ones), or any of its
feature set, so I guess can not really comment much
more on the thread. Those who do, will have lots of
work to do, independent of which route they take,
For me, I think XML (or something simpler, if
anything) will do just fine,
-+ Tatu +-
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]