Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation
Steven J. DeRose wrote:
> At 06:38 PM 02/20/97 -0600, len bullard 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".
> I don't think vertical terms are applicable. Since the element structures of
> both forms are the same, I don't think there's vertical motion involved at all.
Umm... I didn't say that. That is Sean's comment. I say it is a
meaning, same thing, just sideways movement. :-)
We'll have to be clear about XML and SGML. I think subset is the
best description although the crabwalk bit has to be explained too.
Narrowing the features and fixing some holes that open up when
one does is about it. Also, a few things like minimization
were removed because that complicated using XML without a DTD.
That won't be precise enough. I have to review the FAQ in detail.
I think it necessary to say, "we are not fixing SGML; we are
subsetting it to make it easier to apply for those cases
where the full requirements of SGML are too burdensome, but
otherwise, this is still SGML. What we are doing with the
linking is a different matter. Here we have a subset and/or
application of HyTime that is easier to understand and develop and
will provide a much more powerful linking capability than is
currently in use on the Internet."