W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 1999


From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:41:51 -0800
Message-ID: <383B263F.20F6CCD3@eng.sun.com>
To: "Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor" <roconnor@uwaterloo.ca>
CC: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Frank Boumphrey wrote:
> > Not really once you understand the architecture of modules. With SGML your
> > browser needs a DTD to be able to interpret the document, or must have
> > inbuilt knowledge of a DTD.
> This is simply untrue.  A DTD is no longer neccessary in SGML.

In supporting applications. See below.
> > With XML a namespace with a style sheet allows any browser to show your XML
> > module the way you want it, no SGMl working parties.
> With SGML (and XML) alone you just need a style sheet, namespaces are not
> needed.  Architectures allow you to map element to avoid name collisions
> in the same (better and more flexible?) way that I beleive namespaces
> do.

No, that is simply not true. If one attempts to incorporate the CALS table
DTD into one's doctype, if there are name clashes nothing AFs provide will
keep that from happening. The one (and only one) thing that the XML Namespace
Recommendation is good for is name disambiguation. AFs allow you to map a
name into an architecture, which is a rather different process.
> > I suspect Russel that you belong to the old SGML/DSSSL mafia who can't
> > really believe that the old order has changed! <grin>
> I do belong to such a group.  I'm just here to defend SGML every time
> someone spreads FUD about how XML is better than SGML because SGML can't
> do so and so.

Well, belonging in theory to the same group I might note that while the
Web SGML Adaptations [WeBSGML] you keep referring to are now an approved 
ISO TC to 8879, implementation of them is not that widespread, nor is 
architectural forms processing (or understanding). Yes, James Clark has 
his implementation in SP, but while I like AFs I don't think they're going
to fly in the boy's club. Just being pragmatic, here. They don't like PIs
either. Go figure.

Here at Sun we certainly don't think of SGML as dead, and have no plans
to abandon its usage. XML is much too lightweight and its DTDs lack 
some of the expression we require. We plan to continue to use both.


[WeBSGML] http://www.sgmlsource.com/8879rev/n0029.htm
Murray Altheim, SGML Grease Monkey         <mailto:altheim&#64;eng.sun.com>
Member of Technical Staff, Tools Development & Support
Sun Microsystems, 901 San Antonio Rd., UMPK17-102, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4900

   the honey bee is sad and cross and wicked as a weasel
   and when she perches on you boss she leaves a little measle -- archy
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 1999 18:41:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:51 UTC