Re: [xml-dev] SGML complexity

[Tei <oscar.vives@gmail.com>]

Sorry about my mail hard to read. I am not native english speaker. The
crude references about variables is a "in" joke (a usefull one) for
programmers. Unoptimized for other type of people.

A same, because I was tryiing to add a important clarification.

Do you use Pine to read your email on a textmode terminal? :D



On 9/11/06, sterling <sstouden@thelinks.com> wrote:
>
> SGML:definition 2.1.1 expression 1-ambiguous if its markings E' denotes no
> two words uxv and uyw where x not = y and x (unmarked) = y (unmarked), how
> does that fit into xml?  Does this definition fit into xml.
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Tei wrote:
>
> > I think is usefull to describe XML, XSLT and SGML as standard protocols.
> > Because the social implications of a standard protocol is working onthis mail list.
> > There are people that query  "You can do [xyz] with [protocol]", thensome guy A answer "Yes". And then some guy B answer "Maybe, but use[propietary extension, new lenguaje, etc] instead".After that,  a war betwen  A and B tryiing to [win].
> > Thats threads are long, usefull, and because all people post in thecorrect thread, is easy to ignore by people not interested. Yetanother reason to read this beatifull mail list.
> > I want to highlight two facts: - A is [smart, or maybe a genius]. He can do [xyz] with [protocol]and maybe is a good idea, but most normal people are unallowed tofigure out how to convulate [protocol] to make [xyz], mostly becauseat first [xyz] seems imposible. - Fighting against standar protocols are like fighting the tide withsand castles. Is naïve, fun and doomed.
> > Of course, half my facts say "Apply [XYZ]" and half facts say "Avoid[XYZ]". And this why people discuss, because both sides have goodpoints.
> >
>
>