W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

Re: URL better than FPI

From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 03:45:00 -0800
Message-ID: <38B1253C.EF0782A7@eng.sun.com>
To: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
CC: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
Dave J Woolley wrote:
> > From: David Carlisle [SMTP:davidc@nag.co.uk]
> >
> > external references that are needed to have `all necessary information'
> > about XML, and the SGML spec is _not_ one of them.
> >
>         It couldn't be simple and relatively self contained
>         if it included the SGML standard by reference.  Also,
>         given that the SGML standard is a paid for document,
>         the proportion of people using it without having read
>         the standard would be even greater than is likely to
>         be the case with the current specification.

I don't follow the logic at all. XML can reference ISO 8879 without
including the text of it, nor is it enlargened by such a reference,
and whether it costs money to purchase a copy of a spec has 
absolutely no relevance on whether or not it is normative to XML. 
I believe one of the reasons why ISO 8879 is not in the normative
section (but is included in 'Other References') is perhaps because
at the time of printing the WeBSGML (TC2) was not yet an ISO standard
and therefore couldn't be referenced as a normative specification. 
But I don't remember the particular history on this decision.


Murray Altheim                            <mailto:altheim&#x40;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025

   the honey bee is sad and cross and wicked as a weasel 
   and when she perches on you boss she leaves a little measle -- archy
Received on Monday, 21 February 2000 14:30:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:53 UTC