Re: Acceptance of XML
Len Bullard wrote:
> This is eminently sensible. But that can be viewed as
> "We already have HTML, why do we need this?". I don't wish to be
> tendentious, but XML is not the natural evolution of HTML. HTML is
> in a species of DTDs which some of us have created prior to HTML.
Not everyone does need it, just like not everyone needs tables, or applets, or frames. What
many people do need is an extensible tag set. They don't recognize this per se but they do
recognize that HTML is too restrictive for their application. In due course, the "HTML
community" will respond to this need by allowing arbitrary structure and semantic
information. Some are not so far from this already and I suspect that the response will be
sooner rather than later.
If an initial XML is in place early enough and isn't overly complex, it could be used by
the HTML community rather than their reinventing the wheel. This is hardly guaranteed but
we gain little by ignoring that community. Let's not repeat our mistake with HTTP.
Perhaps a small point but I believe that I said "allow the Web community to view XML as the
natural evolution of HTML". I wouldn't mind if HTML became extinct through natural
selection. However, it would be unfortunate if HTML can evolve fast enough to make XML