Re: Winning battles but losing the war

I attended that meeting and tried to put in a plug
for XML whenever I could. The W3C folks tried hard
to downplay SGML and XML, but they did not manage
to keep me quiet. It seems clear that they consider
XML a bit of a threat and are trying to minimize
its role. The best way that we can overcome that
is to demonstrate the uefulness and practicality
of XML as compared to HTML. Interest in growing,
but it will take time and demonstrable software
to sway more people to our side.

I expect to be atending the next AC meeting on June 17/18.
Having software to demonstrate at that meeting would
be a big help in pushing XML higher up on the agenda
for the consortium.

Murray 

At 02:55 PM 12-02-97 GMT, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>Who's supposed to be making our case at the W3C level?  I've just seen
>a lengthy report from a UK representative of last month's W3C meeting,
>and XML is barely there: 2 one-line mentions in a 10-page report on a
>3-day meeting.  Numerous questions were raised to which XML is the
>answer, but apparently no-one gave that answer, e.g.
>
>  "Some felt that there should be an HTML extension mechanism (similar
>  to PEP for HTTP). Dan Connolly would produce a HTML briefing paper".
>
>Why doesn't this say "Dan Connolly pointed out that XML addressed this
>need directly."?
>
>ht
>
>
>

Murray Maloney	
Technical Director  
SoftQuad Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 1997 11:50:18 UTC