Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC?
Peter Flynn wrote:
> At 16:29 19/02/97 -0600, you wrote:
> >Hmm. You could find some and ask them. Of course, the love of the ear
> >is to hear what it heard before. That question usually sets off the
> >platform wars. Gzip is popular because free, but not a great way to
> >pack up multiple files, so in reality, just compression. Pkzip can
> >pack multiple files and compress, but it's not free.
> But there are zips which are both free and compress.
True. SGMLer's have a horror of working software though.
It is more pure to declare than do.
> >should be considered: fat packets piss off the NetLords. Small,
> >"guaranteed overnight deliveries" are the way of the web.
> Pshaw. I _have_ overnight delivery on my connection right now, it's so
> damn slow...
Yes, now imagine it as a snake trying to swallow a stylesheet, a DTD,
a document instance, a catalog, a few miscellaneous applets.
> >Don't let them pick. Pick smart here.
> No. we tried that with HTML and it was ignored because the programmers
> didn't want the hassle of learning SGML. Picking smart is no guarantee
> of anything, unfortunately.
Possibly. Some are complaining on the VRML list that the failure
to nail down a scripting language is the reason we now have so many
incompatible "world" files. Others say picking Java would have
all these Java applets. Some say, "let the market forces and
hot content decide" which of course is no decision and guarantees
the incompatibilities continue because market forces created them
originally and will continue to create them.
The sun still rises. Truth is, we decide.
> >Pick the one that can be implemented fastest in XML 1.0.
> *That*'s more like it. Even if it stinks.
Well, I'd hoped for something that didn't remind me of my
band, but if there is a gig, working equipment is better
than none, and Peavy amps may buzz, but they still work
when dropped from a moving truck.
It doesn't have to be perfect. It has to work and get
us to XML 2.0. It should also be cheap and easy.
> >> Let's not make the same mistake.
> >You mean there is another mistake we can make?
> No, we're all perfect here, aren't we...aren't we...? :-)