- From: Alex Milowski <lex@www.copsol.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 12:09:28 -0500 (CDT)
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> [Martin Bryan, quoting Len Bullard:] > > | > Given choices of things that I as an SGML > | >designer have to give up to get freedom of markup back on the > | >Web, I'm willing to let PEs go in the first pass. > | > | And I'm willing to abandon XML if it does not let me validatable > | maintainable DTDs within at least a year. > > XML is optimized for use as a delivery format for structured data from > databases, not as a database format per se. If you need the features > of full SGML, then you should use full SGML. > > This discussion has pretty well persuaded me that we should leave > parameter entities out of XML 1.0. Entities should not be multiplied > unnecessarily. This would seem to indicate that we should consider XML a "deliver format" or "output" only--especically in large environments. I envision people using XML as their *sole* encoding format. Hence, if we don't provide the ability for people to manipulate and organize definitions within XML, they will do it in some proprietary way outside of XML. Some will use SGML, others will not. Developers will wonder what we were thinking not allowing them to include "modules" *in* XML. I feel strongly that we should leave them in. Simplicity does not always equal functionality. ============================================================================== R. Alexander Milowski http://www.copsol.com/ alex@copsol.com Copernican Solutions Incorporated (612) 379 - 3608
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 1997 13:11:14 UTC