Re: [xml-dev] Time to put SGML out to pasture? (was RE: [xml-dev] Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?)

On Thu, 2001-12-20 at 01:59, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > Of course if you used � to encode NUL in text then that would not
> > be an issue. But I dislike this because its not in line with SGML.
> 
> FWIW, James Clark said in his speech at XML 2001 that we "should be free to
> stab the SGML community, what's left of it, in the back"  because it's now
> more important to clean up XML's foundations than maintain SGML
> compatibility. 
> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/12/19/jjc.html 
> 
> Stabbing in the back seems cruel, but what about a putting it out to pasture
> for a dignified retirement ... Is it time to say "goodbye, Ol' Paint, you've
> been a good pony" to SGML, and find a younger and sturdier mount for the
> journey ahead?  
> 
> Or has Ol' Paint learned to smell the wolves lying in wait for us, and we
> should keep him around? <grin>

I've never been an SGML fan, and never likely will choose to use SGML,
but I have to admit that there's more and more I'd like to learn about. 
There are lots of features in SGML I'd like to hear more about - and
implement in layers _separate_ from DTD processing.

I don't think SGML should be allowed to hold XML back - something I've
said for a long while - but I certainly think it's worth taking a look
at the pile of parts XML discarded to see what creative possibilities
they hold in new contexts.

(And of course, I'm deeply depressed that XML has become _more_ complex
than SGML in many regards.)
 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue