Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation
Jon Bosak wrote:
> | > I aggree. But I *do* wish we could stop referring to SGML files as
> | > "legacy". Surely SGML->XML is a "down-translation" not an
> | > "up-translation".
> | And the language in fact obscures what the most likely application
> | of XML is: a delivery format on the Web for SGML.
> Which is (surprise!) what we're trying to do here.
Right. Sort of a Duh, but in the blizzard of alligators, it
is good to remember which particular swamp is being drained.
> Is it time to point to our activity statement again?
Sure, but in preparing the FAQ, public announcements,
pleas for shareware, the gotchas should be pointed out.
It looks trivial, but it is quite a bit of work to
translate all of this, change the relevant policy
documents, etc. Then they get to learn about all of
the linking features, processing specs. Busy two
years ahead. Peter MR is pointing out something
of interest and that is, without tools that do
the chores, the concepts are trivial, but the grunt
work isn't. Two tracks: translation for XML tools
of existing SGML, and output from SGML tools where
the work continues in SGML, but the delivery format
Later, as the WG8 works out the details for the TC and
establishes an SGML-Lite built on XML, all of the
information about how SGML -> XML translations occur
should be stated with a minimum of fuss. We've taught
them so long that the DTD is sacrosanct, PIs are Bad,
etc, now we have to be ready to calm the waters.
Get out the long staff.