Re: A28: syntax of markup declarations? (LONG)
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
> 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.