- From: <John_Lavagnino@Brown.edu>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 17:24:29 -0500 (EST)
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
It seems desirable to me that the names of all our pieces should carry a strong implication that XML is REALLY (the SGML subset) + (the linking stuff) + (the style stuff), and that anyone who says "I support XML" but who's only done the SGML subset should be widely regarded as a schmuck. So I like Hyper-XML, or XML-Link, but am a tad worried about the possibility that this might be seen as an add-on that you don't really have to support (or could even replace with your own specs). Maybe these worries would be adequately addressed simply by cross-references between the final specs (the XML spec saying "You better do the stuff in the Hyper-XML spec, too", and so on). The applicability of Hyper-XML to SGML can be adequately addressed by a statement to that effect in the draft, I should think. As for HTML, they're going to have to change it to be able to use Hyper-XML, so perhaps the appropriate language is "You HTML people should incorporate all this if you know what's good for you". John Lavagnino Women Writers Project, Brown University
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 1997 17:23:57 UTC