Re: Capitalizing on HTML (was Re: equivalent power in SGML and XML)

[Bob Streich:]

| > From Charles@SGMLsource.com  Tue Sep 17 17:43:18 1996
| > On Tue, 17 Sep 96 09:10:36 CDT, Robert Streich <streich@slb.com> wrote:
| > >If XML is to be anything more than just a stimulating mental exercise, it
| > >has to be a relatively easy jump for any HTML author who isn't afraid to use
| > >HoTMetaL, emacs, etc. to edit HTML. It's difficult enough to get most people
| > >to make the leap away from display-oriented markup. If we add a lot of
| > >restrictions or syntax oddities, we could make the jump downright undesirable.
| > >
| > I wasn't aware that converting HTML users was a requirement of XML. I thought
| > the objective was a lean-and-mean dialect of SGML that would: 
| >
| > 1. reduce the size of web transmissions of SGML documents 
| My apologies on this one. I didn't see it on the list of "design principles"
| so I thought it was a non-issue especially with the trend in many of the
| discussions towards increasing the amount of markup to make it easier to
| write the parser.
| Since this is a requirement that Jon validated in a later mail (I think
| he was referring to this message), I'll have to change my opinion on a few
| issues.

Oops, I screwed up on my blanket endorsement of Charles's statement.

First of all, I was speaking for myself that time, not ex cathedra.  I
will try to make this distinction clearer in future postings.  Second,
I was flat wrong in seeming to endorse the position that XML documents
should be optimized for size.  When I think of SGML on the Web, I
think in terms of fragments served out according to SGML Open TR9601,
and I assume that the server is smart enough to deliver appropriately
sized chunks.  Bob's initial impression was the correct one.  As our
discussion of end-tag omission makes clear, size optimization is *not*
a priority for XML.

Unless I speak directly for the ERB or am acting in an administrative
role with regard to the list, please don't take any statements of mine
as authoritative.  For our current position, refer to the statement of


Follow-Ups: References: