[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation



>
>>> I aggree. But I *do* wish we could stop referring to SGML files as "legacy".
>>> Surely SGML->XML is a "down-translation" not an "up-translation".
>
>I don't think vertical terms are applicable. Since the element structures of
>both forms are the same, I don't think there's vertical motion involved at all.

Whatever the direction, I do not think the use of the word "legacy" for SGML
will help our cause at all and I think we should stop using it.

 . It does not accurately portray the SGML/XML relationship
 . To SGML people, "legacy" is a state your data leaves when you place it in
   SGML. If having got it there is it now "legacy" with respect to XML what
   happens to all that open systems, future proofing, spiel I swallowed from
   the salesman?

I'll buy into "foo"-translation where "foo" is anything other than "up" for
describing
SGML->XML.

Sean