W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > October 1996

Re: C.7 inclusions and exclusions?

From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 01:02:01 -0400
Message-Id: <199610180502.BAA13221@nathaniel.ebt>
To: lee@sq.com
CC: dgd@cs.bu.edu, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
>Yeah, it would be too useful :-)  But the way things are going, XML isn't
>going to be used very widely anyway.  It's accumulating too many of the
>things that, in practice, have made SGML unpopular with those people whose
>favour we now seek to curry.  Or so it seems to me.

Hmm. I tend to agree...

>Imagine if the Unix C compiler output its parse tree in SGML, and so did
>the Pascal compiler, sharing the same code generation algorithm.  Imagine
>if they output SGML to the assembler, so that you could insert an
>SGML-based code optimiser.  Imagine if you could use the SGML-awk to write
>a little peephole optimiser (in the sense of Thomson & Ritchie).
>Or monitor the stream going through the compiler to generate a
>cross-reference code listing.
>What if database schemas were written in SGML?  Spreadsheets?

I imagined, and I saw LISP.... but you are right, these are all things
that SGML *could* be useful for, or perhaps *should* be useful for,
and it shouldn't take 40,000+ lines of code to write a validating
parser for it.
Received on Friday, 18 October 1996 01:04:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:04 UTC