Re: Recent ERB votes

> The primary use of XML is to convey structured information
> from SGML databases to Web applications.


Well, in that case, my interest in XML is considerably reduced.

> The batch processes that I
> used to generate the Shakespeare and Religion collections are actually
> much closer in spirit to the problem domain that XML is primarily
> designed to address than anything having to do with native authoring.

In that case, the problem needed to be stated more clearly, I think.
Or mayby I am the only one who thought that the intent was to attract
people (and programmers) who do not today use SGML, and for applications
for which neither HTML nor SGML is used today?

> I will repeat the point that I want to make sure doesn't get lost
> here: the XML spec does not favor HTML legacy data over SGML legacy
> data; quite the contrary.

In that case, you can delete this silly empty element nonsense.
Neither Netscape nor Microsoft will stop adding EMPTY elements just
because some hastily-designed SGML database report writing language
has a wired-in list of EMPTY elements.

I think we're all taking different drugs here.