XML and SML

[Don Park]

Rick,

>Let us not forget that LISP S-expressions (parenthesis)
>have been around for 35 years; they are simple and can be
>used for markup, but they didn't take off for that use.  
>And Borenstein has that RFC on a markup language that 
>is simpler than XML and just used elements: it has been 
>around for ages and has gone nowhere for documents.

LISP S-expressions is definitely not XML.  Is And Borenstein's
markup language XML?  SML is and I believe it makes a difference.

>I think the internationalization in XML is one of the major
>reasons larger companies like it: it provides an integration 
>path from current encodings to Unicode--people who
>think it is now time to have only UTF-8 have their heads 
>in the sand: so we need encoding headers & NCRs & 
>attributes (to support language) as a minimum requirement
>for i18n IMHO.

That is great for the larger companies.  They can use the full
XML and so will I for applications where i18n is a key factor.
I don't mind using UTF-8 for those occasional foreign characters
so there is no conflict.

Now, why would you mind if I used a simple subset of XML features
and gave it a name?  I do not see how that hurts those large
companies.

>If there is a strong need for a simpler markup language,
>I think it needs to target a particular issue in which XML
>is weak: difficulty of implementation just isn't one of them.
>Who are these poor implementers of parsers we need to be
>so concerned about: IBM? Sun?  Microsoft? James Clark 
>has not conspicuously favoured simple software projects.

Try cramming full a XML parser into a toaster.  When you
got some space left, throw in a compression library as well.

>In what way is it simpler to make up a new markup language, 
>document it, write a parser and API for it, compared to using
>XP or one of the Java parsers?  The area where there is scope
>for a new markup language is for large tables of fielded data
>in which every field is the same: now I know that compression
>takes care of this really, but some people still freak out when they 
>see markup: *but* there is a recent RFC  this month on such
>a language.  It is a nice language, but if you compare it to XML
>you can see the maturity of the SGML/XML community
>in comparison.

You can still use XP or one of the Java parsers to parse SML since
it is XML.  I don't see where this argument is going.

>The debate about a simpler XML is just a waste of time.
>Where are the people debating about a simpler XML Schema
>proposal!  That is something where people might have some
>impact?  Anders and Len are doing something useful bringing
>up these schema issues. With all respect, but I hope that people
>who want SML should move to SML-DEV: I already get over
>200 emails a day. Jokes are welcome but not farces.

I don't think the SML discussion is taking attention away
from XML Schema discussions.  Why all the hostility, Rick?

Don Park    -   mailto:donpark at docuverse.com
Docuverse   -   http://www.docuverse.com


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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe 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)