Re: A28: syntax of markup declarations?
> If XML is successful, it may well become an international standard.
> But note that HTML 2.0 is on the way to becoming an international standard;
> I am not sure that it has helped very much, although it was a great deal
> of work to get it tht far.
It helps. It takes time.
> If you can convert from XML to SGML automatically and 100% reliably,
> amenability to SGML tools will always be only a step away.
All conversions are *a step away*. It creates a separate market.
It creates separate and additional expense. It does not provide
anything that S-expressions or even BNF do not provide. It is yet
another markup system. Why?
> In the mean-time, if we have a language that is significantly more widely
> implemented, and that has a much simpler and clearer specification, your
> clients will be happy they chose XML...
No they won't. My clients have SGML. They will ask "what is the
advantage?" I reply meekly "well, it can be implemented in a
week by a CS undergrad." They will say, "The work habits
of the average CS grad are insignificant. I already pay them
well and I have not problem with it taking two or three weeks
if I can get a system improved, but not too far from my
present course which has been chosen at some risk and some expense.
I already have SGML tools, SGML parsers, SGML expertise, and significant
of SGML data. All I asked for was to get that on the Web
*without conversion*. You gave me a new system. Next."
> I will comment on Tim & Michael's syntax separately -- I _do_ think it
> is a sensible approach. We are not far away from a single unified syntax,
> using only element-style markup. That is an admirable goal, and will be
> a great benefit. It will also reduce the change of confusing XML and SGML
> document instances :-)
I understand the factored appeal of what is being suggested. I think,
like Dr. Newcomb, it is misguided. Someone please list the advantages.
I see none. Clearly distinguishing the schema from the data is a
feature of SGML. I want SGML to be easier; not to replaced.