|
From: | Tupshin Harper |
Subject: | Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: documentation as info |
Date: | Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:36:48 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030827 |
Tom Lord wrote:
Are you really at a loss to find many of the available critiques of XML? or to evaluate the quality of the available source packages that purport to implement this or that subset of reams of related standards? I would have thought that, by now, that stuff was taken "as read".
No, I am not. I have read much of it. There is no consensus, however.
The or was a part of a (gramatically poor) enumeration of the possible interpretations that I could glean from your statements.> I'm not going to defend every usage of XML, since some are certainly > misguided, but neither do I agree that it is inherently harmful and/or > useless. Keep in mind that the XML portion of this thread was > specifically in comparison to SGML.I believe the quote that sparked it was: >>>> (1) It's butt-ugly, like all sgml derivatives. [...] In which context, these questions:> Are you willing to say that SGML == > good and XML == evil? Or do you think structured markup languages are > bad in general for document production?bear no relevance. What exactly do you include in the scope of "structured markup languages [...] for document production"? I can't imagine _any_ language for document production that wouldn't be reasonably described as "structured". In other words, the "Or" in your question is absurd.
I'm willing to include lots of things in the category of "structured makup languages", including XML, SGML, HTML, TeX, RTF, Wiki markup, PS/PDF, and many other.
If you don't think that markup languages are bad, but you do think that XML and SGML are bad (or butt-ugly), then I'm curious in what way (as just a markup language) you think that XML and SGML are bad incarnations of the concept of "structured markup language".
-Tupshin
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |