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

XML Spec Draft of Nov. 14th; versions at Textuality

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:43:16 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0b33.32.19961114224201.00b00c90@pop.intergate.bc.ca>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
The November 14th draft is available in HTML, zipped PostScript,
gzipped PostScript, zipped RTF, and gzipped RTF, at 


The HTML looks a little different - critiques on that welcome;
since this will be the first form that many people will
run across, it's worthwhile investing time in making it
friendly.  One specific question: all of the terms in the
XML source are linked to a <termdef> ... </termdef> phrase.
HTML being what it is, I've just put a hot-link in to the
beginning of the termdef.  Can anyone think of a clever trick
to mark the extent of these definitions without seriously
impairing the readability of the HTML?

Coming real soon now: SGML/XML version, as soon as we 
finish wrangling the Panorama stylesheet.

If anyone else reading this can think of another delivery
format I'd be happy to host it.

I find the slight differences in flavor that you get in the 
different versions are very interesting.  The RTF/PostScript
certainly has immensely superior typographic values; on the
other hand, the fact that all the terms and nonterminals
and references in the HTML are hotlinks is a substantial 

If you're having trouble printing one of the RTF/PS versions,
you can get something perfectly usable by bringing the HTML up in
a browser, reducing the font size to the minimum, and printing
there; I find that MSIE produces a slightly more elegant printout
than Netscape, but your mileage may vary.

For what it's worth, Michael and I are agreed, but the ERB hasn't
yet considered the question, that the huge list
of 10646 character roles should migrate into an appendix, with
a pointer in the main text.  Aside from being hideously ugly,
it breaks up the flow [and also, things that are in the 
appendix don't count against XML's 20-page budget.]  Does
anyone have a reason not to do this? - Tim
Received on Friday, 15 November 1996 01:43:46 UTC

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