Re: XML vrs SGML tools [was Re: Capitalizing on HTML (was ...)]
Paul Prescod wrote:
> Actually, I didn't write that. I wrote:
> >> "We can't _depend_ on XML-only
> >> editors or dedicated XML browsers because there MAY NOT be any." (especially
> >> in the short term)
> But that's just a minor attribution mistake.
Oops. Too much time chopping. Sorry.
> >The Web is not the Internet.
> The Web is not the Internet, but this project is being conducted under the
> auspices of the World Wide Web Consortium with the mandate of creating a
> standard for the Web:
Too true. But the side effects can't be ignored and, frankly,
no one can provide a definition of what the Web is anymore.
There are competing protocols, languages, the lot.
But your point is taken. Many of us here are not members
of the W3C. We have come to this list to cooperate in
the interests of all on what we believe to be a project
of great value to all. I thank the W3C for its hospitality
in hosting this party. So far, the finger food is excellent.
Fire the band.
> They only thing I _CANNOT_ do (that I want to) is to put a generically
> marked up document on my web site such that a largish percentage of the
> online world can read it without an expensive, data-destroying conversion to
> HTML. If XML solves that problem I will consider it an unqualified success.
As will I. I didn't mean to pick on you, Paul... and you know
how dangerous it is to pick on Charles. ;-)
I wished to say that we could get wrapped around the tools axle, the
are well stated, and there are many opportunities that open up
once we bring the cost down of building SGML tools. This works
for the Web, the WG8, consultants, users, in fact, all who
make up the SGML community. When asked recently what the
single largest problem facing the SGML community was, I replied,
"determining if one exists". The last two weeks on this list
give me much comfort on that issue. This is the first time
I've seen the creme de la creme of SGML have as much fun as
the VRMLers do.