XML Spec Draft of Nov. 14th; versions at Textuality
The November 14th draft is available in HTML, zipped PostScript,
gzipped PostScript, zipped RTF, and gzipped RTF, at
The HTML looks a little different - critiques on that welcome;
since this will be the first form that many people will
run across, it's worthwhile investing time in making it
friendly. One specific question: all of the terms in the
XML source are linked to a <termdef> ... </termdef> phrase.
HTML being what it is, I've just put a hot-link in to the
beginning of the termdef. Can anyone think of a clever trick
to mark the extent of these definitions without seriously
impairing the readability of the HTML?
Coming real soon now: SGML/XML version, as soon as we
finish wrangling the Panorama stylesheet.
If anyone else reading this can think of another delivery
format I'd be happy to host it.
I find the slight differences in flavor that you get in the
different versions are very interesting. The RTF/PostScript
certainly has immensely superior typographic values; on the
other hand, the fact that all the terms and nonterminals
and references in the HTML are hotlinks is a substantial
If you're having trouble printing one of the RTF/PS versions,
you can get something perfectly usable by bringing the HTML up in
a browser, reducing the font size to the minimum, and printing
there; I find that MSIE produces a slightly more elegant printout
than Netscape, but your mileage may vary.
For what it's worth, Michael and I are agreed, but the ERB hasn't
yet considered the question, that the huge list
of 10646 character roles should migrate into an appendix, with
a pointer in the main text. Aside from being hideously ugly,
it breaks up the flow [and also, things that are in the
appendix don't count against XML's 20-page budget.] Does
anyone have a reason not to do this? - Tim