Feeling good about SML

[Reynolds, Gregg]

The big difference is the SGML choo-choo was not going anywhere, so
derailing it would have been quite a feat.  The funding that has gone into
XML was not taken from the SGML budget.

But I would not discourage DPSML.  (How about "VML", on grounds that "V" is
half of "X"?  Or maybe "\ML" or "/ML" would be better.)  My own wishlist,
since XMas is approaching, is that Santa deliver 1) a charstring -> tag
mapping so we can recapture the glories of shortrefs, and 2) a distinction
between structural and attributional tags.  I want to be able to say that
_bar_ means <foo>bar</foo>; and I want to be able to say that <section> is
structural, but <quote> is not, it only slathers its content with
attributes.  I mean, isn't it dumb to say that e.g. highlighted text is not
at the same _structural_ level as the surrounding text?  Santa's Markup
Language, anyone?

-grinning gregg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Park [mailto:donpark at docuverse.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 4:42 PM
> 
> >As to the question of XML derailing SGML, it simply isn't the 
> >case. Our SGML customers are happy to stay where they are,
> 
> Putting aside the justification for SML for a moment, allow me to
> replace SGML with XML and XML with SML in your paragraph:
> 
> "As to the question of SML derailing XML, it simply isn't the 
> case. Our XML customers are happy to stay where they are,
> 
> It sounds like a reasonable statement if made 2 years from now.
> 

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)