W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > June 1997

Re: KISS (was: Parameter entity references in WF docs)

From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 11:23:15 -0500
Message-ID: <3391A1F3.6EF4@hiwaay.net>
To: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Martin Bryan wrote:
> 
> Oh yes, lets have modular name spaces so we can share DTD and data fragments
> and no parameter entities so we have to load everything raw into our master
> DTD. Can you please explain the benefit of a modular name spaces in such an
> scenario! (Can you also please take the time to tell Microsoft what they
> should use in place of XML!)

Good point, Martin.  My question is, how much of this is needed for 
XML 1.0 and how much of it is affected by the interlocking decisions 
about XML-LANG, XML-LINK, etc?   The design of XML is large and 
featureful already without a single commercial application to prove 
the usefulnees of these features in the target environment:  The
Internet.

Microsoft knows how to use SGML.  It has all of these features.  If 
they don't do that, why?  Is it perception (their own of SGML or the
Market, 
or of the Market's Perception)?  We can't work that out from here and 
I doubt we can get an answer that represents all of Microsoft.  If we 
speculate, we only feed the "bash the 'softies' movement.  Nyet.

Unless the XML requirements are clear, adding more and more SGML
features 
makes XML into SGML and only by sleight of hand gets rid of a perception 
some here on this list and in other places have worked hard to foster: 
SGML is Too Hard and XML is Simpler.  I don't agree with that but 
I am just one voice on that issue.  On the other hand, I do know 
which features of SGML and which implementations of SGML give
users/authors 
the perception of difficulty and overbuilt parameterized DTDs are 
among them.  

So, do we make this easy for the sake of user perception, do
we make this hard for the sake of the experienced SGML designers 
(that's who benefits from parameterization) or do we step back 
and clearly express the requirement for which we need this feature 
and look at it in practice.  OTW, yes, just tell Microsoft they 
need SGML for some of this as we were all told early in the 
XML discussions.  We have to know when an argument is good 
for the goose and the gander and who gets to be the goose.
MS is just one of the animals in this barnyard.

len
Received on Sunday, 1 June 1997 12:23:44 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:39 EDT