XML complexity, namespaces (was WG)

[Marcus Carr]

David Megginson wrote:

[... some excellent points about SGML and XML that I completely agree with, then:]

> The question, however, is whether there is a real benefit to
> supporting two slightly-variant standards that, in the view of a
> system architect, accomplish exactly the same thing in pretty much the
> same way.

No question - it would be better if there was a single standard, but the demise of SGML should
be natural, driven by nothing other than natural attrition. If it is to go, it will go because
organisations finish mapping datasets across and start using some of the sexy new tools that
we're currently waiting for, obviating the need for SGML. It may well eventuate that SGML
ceases to be required, but until that time, we have a responsibility to ensure that discussion
of the relative positions of the two should be predominately free of passion and politics.

(Yes, that should apply to both sides and no, the previous comment was not directed at David -
I may not agree with all of his opinions, but I believe them to be well-considered.)


--
Regards,

Marcus Carr                      email:  mrc at allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia)      www:    http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
       - Einstein



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)