RE: Is XML getting too hard? (was: Re: More on Namespaces...)

Simon St.Laurent (SimonStL@classic.msn.com)
Wed, 19 Aug 98 01:27:43 UT


James Robertson wrote:
> 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!

and David Megginson writes:

>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.

True - but does anyone else need that stuff either? Okay, that's going too
far. But does everyone else need it? I don't think so. This train is moving
too fast, and apparently has no brakes. I never thought I'd complain about
standards moving too _quickly_, but XML seems to be breaking new ground in
many different ways.

Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies