🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Sep27.135115@uninet.dec.com>, morris@uninet.dec.com (Tom Morris) writes:
> 
> |> The Working Agreements for all three DAPs have been modified to support
only thus far in the US, as far as I know,
> |> in one specification both the ODIF (binary encoding based on ISO
> |> 8824/8825, ASN.1) and the ODL/SDIF (clear text encoding based on ISO
> |> 8879, SGML) interchange formats.  Support for the SGML encoding of
> |> ODA is perceived as a requirement in North America for acceptance of
> |> ODA documents.  
> 
> This seems to raise the possibility that instead of having just two document
> interchange "standards", we'll have four when you take into account the various
> combinations of low level encodings and high level document formats.  This 
> isn't even taking into account the arguments put forward by those who say that
> SGML is really more of a meta-standard then something which will actually allow
> effective document interchange which would imply that the number of "standards"
> is going to grow even more.
> 
> 
> Tom Morris				morris@casee.enet.dec.com
> Digital Equipment,
> Centre Technique Europe S.A.R.L		DTN 828-5729

As a wag once put it:

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

In reality, SGML is a specialized language designed to express the logical
structure of documents.  Since it is a language, it is possible to use it in
many applications, just as ASN.1.  You may note that the CGM (Computer 
Graphics Metafile) standard can optionally be expressed in three languages.

Adding ODL to the DAPs does not add or detract from its being a standard, if
the purpose of a standard is the ability to communicate without loss of 
information.  It adds to the costs to the user, since a translation
capability will have to be available to either ODL or ODIF based applications.

Herman Silbiger
hsilbiger@att.com