SML and History
donpark at docuverse.com
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.com
Docuverse - http://www.docuverse.com
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 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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev