Re: Sample Question

lee@sq.com wrote:
> Len, XML is not a replacement for HTML.  It is a way of using SGML over
> the Internet (see the Activity page).

Read the announcement for the conference.  "..HTML doesn't do enough..."
Can the routine.  This IS a competitor to HTML.  Weazel word the spec 
and the pages and the speeches and the glad handling any way you 
like: it is a competitor to HTML.  Replace it?  Not a chance.  Not now.

> We already know that existing HTML doesn't work as XML.  That decision
> was made on day one.  It's no use telling me to present this in detail
> in San Diego (why San Diego??).

If GCA is going to have a conference about a spec which is *really a set
of recommendations* before 
the damm thing is two thirds drafted, invite the executives and their 
staffs, generate publicity, then maybe some advance preparation about 
potential questions is in order.
> Syntactic HTML compatibility is not consistent with the other requirements.

Never said it was.
> Incidentally, your example wasn't legal HTML either.  

Really??  What is?

> It works because
> the server doesn't actually ship it, so it is a totally unfair question,
> as you well know.  You might as well say that the perl
>         print "<P>";
> is not legal XML.  It's not legal FORTRAN either.

It is an example from the LiveWire Developers Kit.  It is an example 
of the technology of a major member of the consortium.  It is an 
example of how folks do right now what many want to do with XML.
It wasn't meant to be a fair question?  It is an honest one and 
it elicited the honest response:  fatten the file with more 
markup and syntactic stuff needed to isolate the inline scripting, 
and hey, it's XML.  It points out exactly what we will have to
explain to people who haven't a frigging clue what <![CDATA[ 
is or why they should care.
> I think this doesn't belong on this list -- do we need an alt.lang.xml?

Fine.  I'll take these questions to CTS. 


Follow-Ups: References: