W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 1999


From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:17:57 -0500
Message-ID: <001401bf3608$ff30f4e0$08acdccf@preferreduser>
To: "Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor" <roconnor@uwaterloo.ca>, "W3C HTML" <www-html@w3.org>
What a silly statement.

Not really once you understand the architecture of modules. With SGML your
browser needs a DTD to be able to interpret the document, or must have
inbuilt knowledge of a DTD.

With XML a namespace with a style sheet allows any browser to show your XML
module the way you want it, no SGMl working parties.

I suspect Russel that you belong to the old SGML/DSSSL mafia who can't
really believe that the old order has changed! <grin>

----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor <roconnor@uwaterloo.ca>
To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: XHTML

> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Frank Boumphrey wrote:
> > SGML based HTML responds too slowly to change, with XML based XHTML it
> > be possible for interested parties to create their own subsets and add
> > to XHTML.
> What a silly statement.  It would be just as easy for HTML to evolve in
> SGML as it is in XML.  No one is forcing you to use one Document Type
> Declaration.  Arguably you can't really do that anyway.  That's why
> architecture forms exist.
> --
> Russell O'Connor                           roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
>        <http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~roconnor/>
> ``And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message''
> -- Anindita Dutta, ``The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy''
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 1999 18:06:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:51 UTC