Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!cairo!tut
From: tut@cairo.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: SGML question
Keywords: SGML, ambiguity
Message-ID: <141829@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 5 Sep 90 01:55:15 GMT
References: <555@helios.prosys.se> <146@thor.UUCP> <582@helios.prosys.se>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 23

In article <582@helios.prosys.se>, ath@prosys.se (Anders Thulin) writes:
> 
> It would probably be a help to the readers of comp.text.sgml to have
> [a list of SGML specification problems] around.

Is there a newsgroup comp.text.sgml somewhere?  Not where I work.

We investigated SGML two years ago, going so far as to send several people
to high-priced conferences.  Our conclusion was that SGML doesn't solve
the main problem we need solved, which is document portability.  Excuse the
baseball metaphor, but SGML has three strikes against it:

1. It originated at IBM, a company not renowned for software prowess.

2. The spec is bloated, bogus, pretentious, and incomprehensible.

3. It doesn't deal with graphics, tables, or equations (is that 5 strikes?).
   It only provides text portability, which ASCII does more elegantly.

My mind is open, but so far SGML proponents have said nothing to make me
change my mind.  We all want document portability, but I don't think we'll
ever see it from SGML.  And if SGML isn't supposed to provide document
portability, just what problem is it supposed to solve?