- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
- Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 17:06:09 -0500
- To: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Jon Bosak wrote: > > (Speaking only for myself) > > I have thought about Tim Bray's proposal to use the same syntax for > instances and markup declarations and find that I am in complete > agreement. > > 1. It makes no sense to claim that we have created a syntax suitable > for the markup of structured data in general and then not use it for > the markup of the structured document that defines a particular > schema. From a marketing standpoint this is indefensible; from a > logical standpoint it is absurd. I have heard no one deny this. I deny it. This seems a very large move toward reinventing SGML and putting a separate market into place that can take advantage of neither SGML or HTML or any of the tools we currently have. I don't want to have to pay to have the neighborhood built. This doesn't sound like a recipe for success. We lost all of the investment the SGML community has made in both products and in knowledge and training. This would be a language with NO support outside this mailing list. I support a simplified SGML; not an out and out replacement. Were that the case, I would say do LISP and forget about it. Someone is going to have make a very convincing argument for this. No, don't just point to the papers. Convince us here. Len Bullard Lockheed Martin
Received on Monday, 7 October 1996 18:21:07 UTC