> So I ask: what happened to XML being simple?
>
> Or to put it another way: if I have to support namespaces, XSL,
> XML-Data (and more) in order to do anything, I'm going back to SGML
> --- it's simpler!
There is some truth in what James says, but it's important to note
that he cannot simply go back to SGML -- he will have to go back to
SGML, Architectural Forms (for namespace management), DSSSL (for
formatting), and HyTime (for data typing) if he wants an equivalent to
the above list.
If James doesn't need Architectural forms, DSSSL, and HyTime in SGML,
then he shouldn't need namespaces, XSL, and XML-Data (which seems to
have been obsoleted by DCD anyway) in XML, unless someone decides to
start cramming them down all implementors' throats whether they will
or no.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson david@megginson.com
http://www.megginson.com/