Re: [xml-dev] ArchForms and LPDs

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
To: xml-dev <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 19:50:17 +1000

When SGML software vendors "hate" the complexity, they had no good
case to offer software for SGML to begin with, had they? It's not like
SGML is there to appease software vendors after all. That said, SGML
may have been complex by 1986 standards, but it pales in comparison to
the "web stack" of today.

Too much. They may have started off all smiles, then had the smiles wiped from their faces.

Rick

References:
- Summary of critiques of XML Namespace from comments to James Clark2010 blog
  - From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
- Re: [xml-dev] Summary of critiques of XML Namespace from comments toJames Clark 2010 blog
  - From: Marcus Reichardt <u123724@gmail.com>
- [xml-dev] ArchForns and LPDs
  - From: Arjun Ray <arayq2@gmail.com>
- Re: [xml-dev] ArchForns and LPDs
  - From: Marcus Reichardt <u123724@gmail.com>
- Re: [xml-dev] ArchForms and LPDs
  - From: Arjun Ray <arayq2@gmail.com>
- Re: [xml-dev] ArchForms and LPDs
  - From: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@fromoldbooks.org>
- Re: [xml-dev] ArchForms and LPDs
  - From: Marcus Reichardt <u123724@gmail.com>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]