A call for reason
donpark at docuverse.com
Tue Nov 30 12:12:35 GMT 1999
>Excellent point, and I'll take that as a call to change the
>approach. Instead of starting from first principles to
>identify the 'simple' subset, we probably ought to empirically
>identify the 'simple' subset predominantly now in use.
I like this line of thinking and would like to see it
progress further. Result should hopefully be a list
of firmer goals/requirements.
Everyone who are interested in SML are here mainly because
of its relationship to XML. SML discussions have been
drifting somewhat away from XML so I would like to see
if this thread will help us get back to the original intent:
SML is a subset of XML.
Lately, I have been trying to gain a different perspective
by thinking what if SML was here first and XML was actually
SML 2.0? This line of thinking adds a rather interesting
appreciation of attributes.
I hope you don't mind if I stay back in the background for
a while to observe because I found it rather difficult to
see things objectively while trading blows at the frontline.
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;
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