Re: XML: The good, the bad, and the ugly

From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:59:48 -0400
Message-ID: <4ad4lc.lva.ln@mercury.downsfam.net>

Marshall Spight wrote:

>>
>> E.g. - in SGML, it wasn't necessarily necessary to close every tag you
>> open, if the DTD told you how to cope with the missing tags.

>
> Okay. So let's change my mission statement for XML to be simply
> "designed for marking up text for whatever reason." Although one
> now has to note that the total lack of any semantic controls makes
> "for whatever reason" quite weak.

<sarcasm>
Well, for instance, XML is great for marking up Usenet posts. </sarcasm>

>
> In any event, it's clear that it was designed for marking up text,
> and that that's about all it's good at.
>
>
> Marshall

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me

Received on Tue Oct 19 2004 - 19:59:48 CDT