Re: Will XML go beyond SGML Users?
At 05:44 PM 9/30/96 -0700, Ralph Ferris wrote:
>>As I understood it, it was our goal that all browsers should support XML
>>just as they do HTML. Since even Internet Explorer cannot open either RTF or
>Internet Explorer 3.0 can open any ActiveX enabled control, including Word.
>Word (or Excel, or whatever) will then take over the entire client viewing
>area, adding its own toolbar, i.e., there is seemless integration within the
But you must download the Active-X or buy the product to do this. Over a
28.8 modem, a "Word Viewer" is going to take a while to download. Microsoft
has explicitly chosen NOT to ship this with their product, so they obviously
are NOT pushing Word's format (or RTF) as a
Microsoft-shoves-it-down-your-throat-standard. Which is why I disagree with
Charles that we could not achieve greater support for it.
It's also worth noting that URLs are now recognized in
>non-HTML documents (some mail systems support this feature as well). So Word
>users do not need to convert their documents in order to post them to the
>Web. Conversely, what user's think of as the browser has been de-coupled
>from the formats it reads. An ActiveX control can be created to support any
>document markup. So a new markup could be created and popularized, not by
>creating a dedicated browser that supports it, but by supplying an ActiveX
>control that supports it. XML could be introduced to the market in this way.
If necessary. For all that Microsoft, Sun, Java tries to make components
seem "native" native still seems more native. Native browser support would