W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > November 1996

Re: Recent ERB votes

From: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:48:59 -0800
Message-Id: <199611072148.NAA08548@boethius.eng.sun.com>
To: W3C-SGML-WG@w3.org
CC: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng
[Lee Quin:]

| > The primary use of XML is to convey structured information
| > from SGML databases to Web applications.
| 
| Oh.
| 
| Well, in that case, my interest in XML is considerably reduced.

Perhaps you should check out the W3C Activity Page that I keep
referring to:

   http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/SGML/Activity

| > The batch processes that I
| > used to generate the Shakespeare and Religion collections are actually
| > much closer in spirit to the problem domain that XML is primarily
| > designed to address than anything having to do with native authoring.
| 
| In that case, the problem needed to be stated more clearly, I think.
| Or mayby I am the only one who thought that the intent was to attract
| people (and programmers) who do not today use SGML, and for applications
| for which neither HTML nor SGML is used today?

The delivery of structured data to Web clients *is* an application for
which neither HTML nor SGML is widely used today.

Attracting HTML users to SGML is something that all of us would like
to get out of this activity.  That does not mean that it is the
primary goal of the activity.

There are a number of goals being balanced here.  They do not all have
the same priority.  Only one of them can be given top priority.  That
is the one specified in the activity statement.  The fact that one
goal must be given top priority does not mean that there are not other
goals.  It just means that they do not all have exactly the same
priority.

| > I will repeat the point that I want to make sure doesn't get lost
| > here: the XML spec does not favor HTML legacy data over SGML legacy
| > data; quite the contrary.
| 
| In that case, you can delete this silly empty element nonsense.
| Neither Netscape nor Microsoft will stop adding EMPTY elements just
| because some hastily-designed SGML database report writing language
| has a wired-in list of EMPTY elements.

Now you're assuming that the intent is to grandfather HTML documents
again.  We don't care how many additional empty elements NS/MS wire
into their browsers.  The idea behind the strategy adopted by the ERB
is that it is possible to construct documents that will be XML
documents and HTML documents at the same time.  Adding more empty tags
to an HTML browser has no effect on such documents.

Jon
Received on Thursday, 7 November 1996 16:51:02 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:42 EDT