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

Re: Recent ERB votes

From: <lee@sq.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 11:15:21 EST
Message-Id: <9611081615.AA20951@sqrex.sq.com>
To: W3C-SGML-WG@w3.org
Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Mass delivery of large documents IS something that neither HTML nor SGML is
> used for today. I'm pretty sure I can't acess Jon's Shakespeare collection
> over the Web without downloading new, complex software (unless he is serving
> them through DynaWeb, which is not affordable for many of us).

(1) the entire bible is only approx. 5 MBytes -- not exactly a large
    database.  (I don't mean to denigrate what Jon did, by the way, but
    it pales to insignificance in terms of size when compared to the
    Novell online documentation, for example)

(2) It's accessible today in Panorama; whether you call Panorama complex or
    not may depend on how much of the source you've seen :-) but it's
    certainly affordable!

> If we could
> easily create print and online versions of annual reports, manuals, etc., we
> _would_ be able to attract people and programmers who do not today use SGML.

I agree.  Of course, empty elements aren't related to that.
And neither is downloading SGML databases over the internet...

> Again, the goal isn't to support HTML "du jour", but provide a smooth
> migration path from HTML to XML for the short term.

Then why wire in a list of HTML "du jour" EMPTY elements into
XML perpetuity?  The same program that converts today's HTML into XML
can change <BR> to <BR/> if it likes.


Liam Quin, lee@sq.com         | lq-text freely available Unix text retrieval
Senior Technical Consultant   | FAQs: Metafont fonts, OPEN LOOK UI, OpenWindows
SoftQuad Inc. +1 416 544-9000 | xfonttool (Unix xfontsel in XView)
http://www.softquad.com/      | The barefoot programmer
Received on Friday, 8 November 1996 11:15:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:20 UTC