- From: Bert Bos <bbos@mygale.inria.fr>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 21:22:21 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Paul Prescod writes: > > PIs are allowed to users in XML (which I believe to be a mistake, but I'll > > simply never use them, and progandize against their use, when I have a > > chance). However, their use in XML itself has been very sensible: they > > allow us to add the equivalent of new declarations and DTD features to XML > > -- without having to use SGML-incompatible (or SGMl-invisible) syntax. > > Why wouldn't PIs be useful for the same reasons in XML that they are in SGML? > Is it unreasonable to think that maybe someday someone will use them to define > an application profile of XML in the same way that we have defined one of > SGML? That is not much of a reason. XML is not SGML, except very superficially. It has taken the original idea of SGML and developed it further, using new insights that were not available a decade ago. Trying to adapt SGML to be compatible with XML, and XML to be compatible with SGML visibly leads to losses to both. Just don't do it! XML is (or can be, if this WG wants it) a very elegant, efficient, cheap, and powerful format, and it promises to deliver everything that SGML once promised and it stands a much better chance. HTML is constantly plagued by `backward compatibility' which essentially kills all good ideas. Why are some people here so masochistic as to willingly create a backwards compatibility problem for XML, when there is none? Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/People/Bos/ INRIA/W3C bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 4 93 65 77 71 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 1997 15:22:38 UTC