Re: RE/RS Options: One bottom line

Tim Bray wrote:
> There is no desire here to grandfather existing HTML, but, given the fact
> that Microsoft IE already does stylesheets, and Netscape says they will too,
> if they just start applying style attributes when attached to non-HTML
> tags, then we are VERY VERY VERY close to being able to send generic SGML
> to 50 million desktops *as they sit* and get good results.
> Thus, the potential gains would be enormous if the following, given an
> appropriate DTD, were valid XML:
> <p>The verbal leitmotif "Listen to my <IMG SRC="heart.jpg">heart
> beat" is sprinkled throughout
> <A  HREF="http://www.voyagerco.com/LA/VgerLa.html">Laurie Anderson</A>'s mid-Eighties work.</p>
> Whatever has to be done to achieve this and retain the maximal amount of
> RS/RE handling and 8879 compliance, we just have to do.  Otherwise we're
> wasting our time.

I agree and I see the sense of it.  I just don't want to go down 
the path of trying to keep up with and adjust to all of the variants
that DO produce gratuitous incompatibilities with extant SGML basic 
practices such as the odd comment structure I posted yesterday.
I feel that the browser wars are becoming a rice grinder of beta hell.
That is competition, and we all understand it I think, but I don't
want XML to be the rice too soon.  It appears from here that that 
has made life for the HTML WG and W3C members difficult, and 
the users as well who are now having to choose the platform and 
stick with it.  As you know, in VRML where one language and 
one syntax exist, the scripting issue alone is forcing the same 
decision.  So while, yes, it will also happen in XML, no doubt, 
as far as possible, the base language design should be pristine.

Otherwise, I'm also in favor that HTML -> XML should be 
pretty painless especially for authors.  Where they can make 
the transition almost invisibly, everyone wins.

len bullard