- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
- Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 07:27:54 -0500
- To: lee@sq.com
- CC: srn@techno.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
lee@sq.com wrote: > > 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 amounts 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. Len Bullard Lockheed Martin
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 1996 08:27:43 UTC