Re: XML Conformance Levels [Was: ERB Decisions of March 26th]

On Mar 26,  5:40pm, Tim Bray wrote:
> Subject: Re: XML Conformance Levels [Was: ERB Decisions of March 26th]
> At 05:21 PM 3/26/97 -0800, altheim wrote:
> >XML is either a little spec or a big spec. We can't have grand
> >functionality without the little spec becoming the big spec.
> Here is the point of disagreement.  If we believed this, we wouldn't
> have just gone through the last agonizing 9 months whittling XML down,
> to the accompaniment of shrieks from the audience for every discarded
> feature. -Tim

To anyone who thinks you can't have grand functionality without a big spec, I
highly recommend looking at the R4RS Scheme standard, which is only 50
languages and teaches you the whole language.  You might also consider the
Algol '60 standard (16 pages, I'm told).

On the other hand, you can consider Common Lisp, at 900+ pages, with,
ultimately, no greater power.  But it includes everything and the kitchen sink.

Scheme is all over the place, embedded in lots of different systems and taught
to thousands of students as a first programming language.  And schemers
regularly go beserk when people start trying to add anything to the language.

So maybe the XML is to Scheme as SGML is to Common Lisp is a good analogy.

Matthew Fuchs