W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > October 1996

Re: ERB decisions, 23 October 1996

From: <lee@sq.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 22:47:15 EDT
Message-Id: <9610240247.AA05733@sqrex.sq.com>
To: bill.smith@eng.sun.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> I find the introduction of "optional features" in XML most unfortunate

I agree.

This was a major issue for HTML.  Content Negotiation for HTML variants
is not generally available today, two and a half years after the first
HTML working group meeting.

Clearly you can't use any optional feature in a document to be published
on the web if you have no control over the browser.  If you have control
over the browser and are starting with SGML, you can call +1 416 544 9000
and ask for Panorama OEM licensing :-)

If you can't use optional XML features, they are better off not being there.

> If entities are essential for XML to be useful as an authoring
> language, than entities should be in XML 1.0. I don't subscribe to
> that belief since I know of several "useful editors" that do not
> support entities.

Agreed on both counts (assuming you mean external entities)

> Whatever happened to as simple as possible?

That got thrown away with the decision to be SGML compatible :-)

Received on Friday, 25 October 1996 10:11:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:04 UTC