- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 09:09:46 -0500
- To: Bill Lindsey <blindsey@bdmtech.com>
- CC: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU>, W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
Bill Lindsey wrote: > Is it a design goal to ensure that some percentage of today's > SGML documents are "grandfathered" in, or is it enough that the > EE-ESIS translation is available? If it is the former case, > how do we decide which class(es) of documents shall be supported? We can't support all of them, of course. A lot of use of the *exotic* features of SGML has been made. This is one issue where filtering is an acceptable solution. I think we have to do as James Clark has suggested and be very stingy with the features we include. Otherwise, we will be debating based on the size of the legacy. While I understand the realities of legacy, my experience has been that this argument has the effect of making one choose politics of investment and buttered bread. This is slippery ground and one of the places where the *use real SGML* argument applies. len bullard lockheed martin
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 1996 10:02:25 UTC