Altova Mailing List Archives

Re: [xml-dev] Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"

From: Paul Prescod <paul@-------.--->
To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@-------.---.-->, xml-dev@-----.---.---
Date: 3/18/2002 5:40:00 AM
Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> Sure people are still using them :-)  Because XML has not provided any extra
> or equivalent functionality for people who need to mark pre-existing material up,
> it has not made inroads into many of the traditional SGML markup shops.
> XML has not really helped people who need to mark up pre-existing material, has it?
> OMITTAG, SHORTTAG and SHORTREF (i.e. the optional features of SGML that
> proved themselves useful) were all oriented to markup minimization.  Terseness
> is of minimal importance in XML.

Fair enough. My experience, however, is that the "average" company
consuming SGML or XML does not actually do its own markup of legacy text
but rather outsources it. So we're talking about an extremely
specialized market here.

> Because XML makes content creation more difficult than SGML, it naturally
> gravitates towards DBMS systems rather than starving for lack of input.

XML makes tool-less content creation harder than SGML. But if you're
using XMetaL or FrameMaker+SGML then why would you care whether the tree
you were editing is serialized as XML or SGML? Even if I grant that
sometimes it makes sense to do markup of legacy data with a simple text
editor I wouldn't agree that that's appropriate for the creation of new
content in an enterprise environment.

> So XML becomes more and more a middleware-to-backend interchange
> format, rather than having much to do with publishing or having content to
> manage. 

That's different from what I hear from companies like XMetaL and
Documentum. I believe that their customers use XML for publishing.

> ...
> AFAICS, XML is no more thriving on the desktop than SGML ever was.

Generic markup will never be mass market. But OpenOffice, StarOffice and
KOffice support XML as a serialization for their internal formatting
model. That's better than where we were five years ago when you had to
pay an arm and a leg to get your data into an even-wellformed state.

> And, indeed, the marketing that XML is better than SGML for all uses may have
> put on hold the spread of the complex document systems down from publishers
> to the next tier of sophisticated users.

I don't know that users (even sophisticated ones!) want complex document

 Paul Prescod


These Archives are provided for informational purposes only and have been generated directly from the Altova mailing list archive system and are comprised of the lists set forth on Therefore, Altova does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness, usefulness, non-infringement of intellectual property rights, or quality of any content on the Altova Mailing List Archive(s), regardless of who originates that content. You expressly understand and agree that you bear all risks associated with using or relying on that content. Altova will not be liable or responsible in any way for any content posted including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in content, or for any losses or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of or reliance on any content. This disclaimer and limitation on liability is in addition to the disclaimers and limitations contained in the Website Terms of Use and elsewhere on the site.