The conversations I recall around XML's appearance and being interesting and popular involved statements like "It's like HTML, it just demands closing tags" and similar statements which more truly reflect the ignorance of the individuals and masses. The things introduced with the most voice, flare and fanfare, generally attract the most attention. Microsoft was able to make the flash it the pan turn into a fire that was more inviting than the ember of glow coming out of the single vendor that had a "product" (it was hardly usable when I started to us it in 1996 at Lucent) that used SGML.
SGML required DTDs. XML allowed them. So, you could create a complete mess without documenting it. That made a lot of people happier than the strictness of SGML, which we now see has reappeared into XML things that document and demand structure that is required for true interchange. Gregg Wonderly Hitoshi Ozawa wrote: > +1. XML became more popular than SGML because it was much more simple > to develop tools for it. :-) > > H.Ozawa > > 2009/8/31 Sanjiva Weerawarana <[email protected] > <mailto:sanjiva%40opensource.lk>>: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Michael Poulin <[email protected] > <mailto:m3poulin%40yahoo.com>> wrote: > >> > >> To conclude, I would like to say that, IMO, I have much more flexibility > >> with XML in manipulating the service interaction (message content) with > >> already deployed service than with other programming languages I am > aware > >> about. > > > > I agree, but only because XML has a very limited data model compared to > > Java/C# etc.. > > > > It simply comes down to the data model and its ability to be > serialized. You > > can build a distributed computing system using any data model and any > > serialization. If you want more flexibility, then choose a data model > that > > is less constraining. If you want more convenience, use a data model > that's > > more constraining. If you want optimal communication performance (memory, > > bandwidth, time etc.) then use a very efficient serialization. If you > want > > everyone in the world to be able to read your data on the other side, > use a > > standard serialization. > > > > Its all a bunch of choices depending on what problem you want to > solve and > > how you want to solve it. No one single answer is the answer to all > > questions. > > > > The strength of XML (data model, not XML 1.0/1.1 serialization) + WS-* is > > not a powerful data model or an ultra efficient serialization, but rather > > its weak data model (which allows it to be bound to other more strict > data > > models) plus the universal serialization (XML angle brackets) that every > > vendor supports. > > > > Sanjiva. > > -- > > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > > Founder, Director & Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation; > > http://www.opensource.lk/ <http://www.opensource.lk/> > > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/ > <http://www.wso2.com/> > > Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ > <http://www.apache.org/> > > Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ > <http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/> > > > > Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ <http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/> > > > > > >
