On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Dave J Woolley wrote: > > From: Murray Altheim [SMTP:altheim@eng.sun.com] > > > 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 > > I thought we were talking about SGML - XML claims to > be SGML, although any transitive reference to SGML > would still introduce the full complexity. > > > and therefore couldn't be referenced as a normative > > specification. But I don't remember the particular history on > > this decision. Offhand, I don't remember either. I think it had to do with whether "transitive references" ought to be necessary - as opposed to the XML spec functioning as a more or less complete free-standing document. At any rate, I do remember a subsequent discussion during the first round of the namespaces fiasco. Unfortunately, it's buried in a very long thread, "Update on namespaces". I think it started with this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1997Jun/0327.html ArjunReceived on Tuesday, 22 February 2000 00:15:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:42 GMT