On 03/22/2017 10:11 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
> I don't see how this is particularly related to XML or developing using XML. It
> seems offtopic here and there should be more appropriate forums to discuss it.
> Or am I missing anything?
>
Yes. With respect, Shlomi, I think you're missing the original reason
for the existence of SGML and its HTML and XML descendants, namely the
common interest of all human beings and organizations in their own
information. Before SGML, "vendor lock-in" so rigidly segmented the
information-owner services marketplace that, in effect, there was no
such marketplace. Even the U.S. Department of Defense was the captive
of its weapons system suppliers; it couldn't manage its own technical
information. Something had to be done, and it was.
SGML was the solution that would open a world of choices to information
owners. Even IBM -- not exactly a charitable organization, and among
the world's largest providers of services to information owners -- saw
the necessity of it and provided essential support for its development
and adoption. IBM wasn't being generous to its competitors. It was the
smart thing to do. It changed the world. It created a whole industry.
That was then. Nowadays, the situation is more disturbing.
Not everything the XML community has to discuss is down in the nuts and
bolts of XML itself, nor is it entirely in XML's many fascinating
satellite technologies. It's also in XML's business environment, in the
meta-concerns that gave birth to XML and, not least of all, how the XML
experience informs the perspectives of XML practitioners.
Of course we could talk about those things in any number of fora where
few know what XML is really all about. That would be a good way to
accomplish... what?
Steve
