SML and History

Don Park donpark at
Fri Nov 12 23:57:27 GMT 1999


>Simplified XML failed to happen because the WG totally failed 
>to achieve consensus on what it ought to be.  My memory is
>foggy but I seem to recall that everyone agreed that references
>to external entities should be suppressed, but I can't bring to
>the front of my mind any one other thing that everyone agreed on.

I consider this to be one of the two major stumbling block for SML
as well.  Just thinking about the discussion on whether to include
attribute or not gives me headaches.

>Further complicating picture was serious concern by some, 
>again including me, about "splitting XML".  Given the existence
>of a simplified XML, many vendors would gleefully leap on board,
>support only that, announce to the world that they supported XML,
>and throw any incoming document on the floor that happened to
>include lots of things that XML 1.0 said was legal.  Speaking only
>for myself, this was the blood-in-the-water issue.

This is the other major stumbling block.  Ignorant marketeers
reasoning "SML is XML so we are supporting XML!  Let's put that
on the box."  I have no answer for this sort of thing happenning
other than a firing squad.


Don Park    -   mailto:donpark at
Docuverse   -

PS: I rather liked the name Don Park Markup Language <g>.

  <excited>Lets do this!  <jump>Lets do that!</jump></excited>
  <persistent>But...  I still think...</persistent>
  <objective>Who is the bigger ass?  I am not sure.</objective>
  <funny>Len, are you a bot?</funny>

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

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list