Re: [xml-dev] Designing information for eternity

[Steve Newcomb <srn@coolheads.com>]

There are many examples of SGML, many of them are more than twice that
old, and some are still in daily use.  Do they count?  I think the
question is important from the perspective of eternity.  Technically
speaking, XML documents are SGML documents (it says here in ISO 8879 as
amended) but the reverse is generally not true.  Will eternity ignore
the SGML because it's not XML?  I doubt it.

And, does anybody want to disagree with my earlier remarks that
highlighted the implications of the fact that URIs are SYSTEM
identifiers, and not PUBLIC ones?  Would anyone like to take the
opposite position and argue that this difference is NOT important from
the perspective of eternity?  Or that, from eternity's perspective,
PUBLIC is NOT, um, more eternal?  I might not be right, and I'm willing
to learn.

In general, I think the Web has dazzled us all, but the rest of the
story is also important.  It's a much longer story, extending back
farther, and I would argue, farther forward, as well.  As always,
context is all-important.


On 11/19/2013 07:36 AM, Costello, Roger L. wrote:

> Information is eternal.
> 
> Software to process information is fleeting -- today it's one software package, tomorrow it's another.
> 
> Free your information from being optimized for, and specific to, any one program.
> 
> I think that perspective is right: data is primary ... and eternal. 
> 
> That perspective gives me the warm comfort that my work will endure long after I'm gone. That is quite satisfying.
> 
> Lately I had lost my way and thought that software was primary. You folks have helped me regain the proper perspective, for which I am very thankful.
> 
> But does the world have that perspective?
> 
> XML has been around for 15 years. Are there any XML documents that are 15 years old  and are still useful and being actively used? Will they be used 50 years from now? Does the web community design XML for eternity? Do *you* design XML for eternity?