Succession in standardization: Grafting XML onto SGML
Identifieur interne : 000109 ( PascalFrancis/Curation ); précédent : 000108; suivant : 000110Succession in standardization: Grafting XML onto SGML
Auteurs : T. M. Egyedi [Pays-Bas] ; A. G. A. J. LoeffenSource :
- Computer Standards and Interfaces [ 0920-5489 ] ; 2002.
Descripteurs français
- Pascal (Inist)
- Wicri :
- topic : Normalisation.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
Succession in standardization is often a problem. The advantages of improvements must be weighed against those of compatibility. If compatibility considerations dominate, a grafting process takes place. According to our taxonomy of succession, there are three types of outcomes. A Type I succession, where grafting is successful, entails compatibility between successors, technical paradigm compliance and continuity in the standards trajectory. In this paper, we examine issues of succession and focus on the Extensible Markup Language (XML). It was to be grafted on the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), a stable standard since 1988. However, XML was a profile, a subset and an extension of SGML (1988). Adaptation of SGML was needed (SGML 1999) to forge full (downward) compatibility with XML (1998). We describe the grafting efforts and analyze their outcomes. Our conclusion is that although SGML was a technical exemplar for XML developers, full compatibility was not achieved. The widespread use of HyperText Markup Language (HTML) exemplified the desirability of simplicity in XML standardization. This and HTML's user market largely explain the discontinuity in SGML-XML succession. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
| pA |
|
|---|
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream PascalFrancis, to step Corpus: Pour aller vers cette notice dans l'étape Curation :000076
Links to Exploration step
Pascal:02-0352603Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Succession in standardization: Grafting XML onto SGML</title><author><name sortKey="Egyedi, T M" sort="Egyedi, T M" uniqKey="Egyedi T" first="T. M." last="Egyedi">T. M. Egyedi</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Info./Commun. Tech./Standardization Faculty of Tech., Policy and Mgmt. Delft University of Technology</s1><s2>2600 GA Delft</s2><s3>NLD</s3><sZ>1 aut.</sZ></inist:fA14><country>Pays-Bas</country></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Loeffen, A G A J" sort="Loeffen, A G A J" uniqKey="Loeffen A" first="A. G. A. J." last="Loeffen">A. G. A. J. Loeffen</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno><idno type="inist">02-0352603</idno><date when="2002">2002</date><idno type="stanalyst">PASCAL 02-0352603 EI</idno><idno type="RBID">Pascal:02-0352603</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000076</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Curation">000109</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Succession in standardization: Grafting XML onto SGML</title><author><name sortKey="Egyedi, T M" sort="Egyedi, T M" uniqKey="Egyedi T" first="T. M." last="Egyedi">T. M. Egyedi</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Info./Commun. Tech./Standardization Faculty of Tech., Policy and Mgmt. Delft University of Technology</s1><s2>2600 GA Delft</s2><s3>NLD</s3><sZ>1 aut.</sZ></inist:fA14><country>Pays-Bas</country></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Loeffen, A G A J" sort="Loeffen, A G A J" uniqKey="Loeffen A" first="A. G. A. J." last="Loeffen">A. G. A. J. Loeffen</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j" type="main">Computer Standards and Interfaces</title><title level="j" type="abbreviated">Comput Stand Interfaces</title><idno type="ISSN">0920-5489</idno><imprint><date when="2002">2002</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">Computer Standards and Interfaces</title><title level="j" type="abbreviated">Comput Stand Interfaces</title><idno type="ISSN">0920-5489</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Computer aided software engineering</term><term>Computer software compatibility</term><term>Computer software grafting</term><term>Computer software portability</term><term>HTML</term><term>SGML</term><term>Standardization</term><term>Theory</term><term>XML</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Théorie</term><term>XML</term><term>Langage SGML</term><term>Langage HTML</term><term>Portabilité logiciel</term><term>Génie logiciel assisté</term><term>Normalisation</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Wicri" type="topic" xml:lang="fr"><term>Normalisation</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Succession in standardization is often a problem. The advantages of improvements must be weighed against those of compatibility. If compatibility considerations dominate, a grafting process takes place. According to our taxonomy of succession, there are three types of outcomes. A Type I succession, where grafting is successful, entails compatibility between successors, technical paradigm compliance and continuity in the standards trajectory. In this paper, we examine issues of succession and focus on the Extensible Markup Language (XML). It was to be grafted on the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), a stable standard since 1988. However, XML was a profile, a subset and an extension of SGML (1988). Adaptation of SGML was needed (SGML 1999) to forge full (downward) compatibility with XML (1998). We describe the grafting efforts and analyze their outcomes. Our conclusion is that although SGML was a technical exemplar for XML developers, full compatibility was not achieved. The widespread use of HyperText Markup Language (HTML) exemplified the desirability of simplicity in XML standardization. This and HTML's user market largely explain the discontinuity in SGML-XML succession. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.</div></front></TEI><inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>0920-5489</s0></fA01><fA03 i2="1"><s0>Comput Stand Interfaces</s0></fA03><fA05><s2>24</s2></fA05><fA06><s2>4</s2></fA06><fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>Succession in standardization: Grafting XML onto SGML</s1></fA08><fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>EGYEDI (T. M.)</s1></fA11><fA11 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>LOEFFEN (A. G. A. J.)</s1></fA11><fA14 i1="01"><s1>Info./Commun. Tech./Standardization Faculty of Tech., Policy and Mgmt. Delft University of Technology</s1><s2>2600 GA Delft</s2><s3>NLD</s3><sZ>1 aut.</sZ></fA14><fA20><s1>279-290</s1></fA20><fA21><s1>2002</s1></fA21><fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0></fA23><fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1><s2>19988</s2></fA43><fA44><s0>A100</s0></fA44><fA45><s0>34 Refs.</s0></fA45><fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>02-0352603</s0></fA47><fA60><s1>P</s1></fA60><fA61><s0>A</s0></fA61><fA64 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>Computer Standards and Interfaces</s0></fA64><fA66 i1="01"><s0>NLD</s0></fA66><fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>Succession in standardization is often a problem. The advantages of improvements must be weighed against those of compatibility. If compatibility considerations dominate, a grafting process takes place. According to our taxonomy of succession, there are three types of outcomes. A Type I succession, where grafting is successful, entails compatibility between successors, technical paradigm compliance and continuity in the standards trajectory. In this paper, we examine issues of succession and focus on the Extensible Markup Language (XML). It was to be grafted on the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), a stable standard since 1988. However, XML was a profile, a subset and an extension of SGML (1988). Adaptation of SGML was needed (SGML 1999) to forge full (downward) compatibility with XML (1998). We describe the grafting efforts and analyze their outcomes. Our conclusion is that although SGML was a technical exemplar for XML developers, full compatibility was not achieved. The widespread use of HyperText Markup Language (HTML) exemplified the desirability of simplicity in XML standardization. This and HTML's user market largely explain the discontinuity in SGML-XML succession. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.</s0></fC01><fC02 i1="01" i2="X"><s0>001D00C</s0></fC02><fC02 i1="02" i2="X"><s0>001D02B</s0></fC02><fC02 i1="03" i2="X"><s0>001D02B03</s0></fC02><fC02 i1="04" i2="X"><s0>001D02B12</s0></fC02><fC03 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s0>Computer software compatibility</s0><s4>INC</s4></fC03><fC03 i1="02" i2="1" l="ENG"><s0>Computer software grafting</s0><s4>INC</s4></fC03><fC03 i1="03" i2="1" l="FRE"><s0>Théorie</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="03" i2="1" l="ENG"><s0>Theory</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="04" i2="1" l="FRE"><s0>XML</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="04" i2="1" l="ENG"><s0>XML</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="05" i2="1" l="FRE"><s0>Langage SGML</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="05" i2="1" l="ENG"><s0>SGML</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="06" i2="1" l="FRE"><s0>Langage HTML</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="06" i2="1" l="ENG"><s0>HTML</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="07" i2="1" l="FRE"><s0>Portabilité logiciel</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="07" i2="1" l="ENG"><s0>Computer software portability</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="08" i2="1" l="FRE"><s0>Génie logiciel assisté</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="08" i2="1" l="ENG"><s0>Computer aided software engineering</s0></fC03><fC03 i1="09" i2="1" l="FRE"><s0>Normalisation</s0><s3>P</s3></fC03><fC03 i1="09" i2="1" l="ENG"><s0>Standardization</s0><s3>P</s3></fC03><fN21><s1>189</s1></fN21></pA></standard></inist></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Informatique/explor/SgmlV1/Data/PascalFrancis/Curation
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000109 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Curation/biblio.hfd -nk 000109 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Informatique
|area= SgmlV1
|flux= PascalFrancis
|étape= Curation
|type= RBID
|clé= Pascal:02-0352603
|texte= Succession in standardization: Grafting XML onto SGML
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |