Table of Contents

ToC1. Some thoughts on proprietary markup

From ieunet!mcsun!uunet!vnet.IBM.COM Tue Jun  1 15:17:01 BST 1993
Article: 1991 of comp.text.sgml
Path: curia!ieunet!mcsun!uunet!vnet.IBM.COM
From: drmacro@vnet.IBM.COM
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 09:31:01 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.text.sgml
Subject: Re: SGML
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.1
Lines: 28
Content-Length: 1471

In <>, writes:

I have recieved a request from another indivual that I work with about SGML. Although I support the use of SGML (They want to compare its use with MML from Framemaker) I by no means can explain its benefits over a proprietary markup language […]

Ask this person if they would mind if when they bought a car:

  1. they could only get gasoline and service from the car maker;

  2. if they could only drive it on roads provided by the car maker;

  3. and it could only be driven by people who had been trained to drive that particular make and model of car.

That's what you sign up for when you tie yourself to a proprietary data format.

The mistake people make is that they think what they are creating when they create documents with computers is printed pages, when in fact they are creating databases of information. You can test this by comparing the cost of losing the printed pages with the cost of losing the source files from which they were generated.

As Tim Bray pointed out at SGML'92, no MIS manager would in his right mind consider using a proprietary data format for relational information. So it should be for textual information.

Eliot Kimber                      Internet:
Dept E14/B500                     IBMMAIL:   USIB2DK9@IBMMAIL
Network Programs Information Development     Phone: 1-919-254-5160
IBM Corporation
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

If you still think visual-only markup is the way to go, read on

Table of Contents
RSS newsfeedKeep up to date with our RSS newsfeed