Re: RS/RE: basic questions
> >There's no point in practice in being compatible with 8879 -- instead, XML
> >has to be compatible with actual tools.
This has been quoted out of context. Say rather, there is no point in being
compatible with SGML but not compatible with existing SGML tools.
> Hey, it worked for HTML, didn't it?
I am not sure what you mean by that -- are you referring to the IETF HTML 2.0
work, which in fact produced an SGML DTD? When HTML was invented, there
*were* no existing HTML tools. It _is_ unfortunate that Tim didn't know
enough about SGML -- ``just enough to be dangerous'', as Yuri put it --
and that Dan wasn't involved sooner...
However, I would say that until the major tool manufacturers changed, and
it became the case that the major implementors were not cooperating with
the IETF working group, it was successful. But yes, it was a lot of work.
Liam Quin, SoftQuad Inc. | lq-text freely available Unix text retrieval
email@example.com +1 416 544-9000 | FAQs: Metafont fonts, OPEN LOOK UI, OpenWindows
http://www.softquad.com/ | xfonttool (Unix xfontsel in XView)
SGML - HTML - Other Things | The barefoot programmer