W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > February 1997

Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC?

From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:17:16 -0600
Message-ID: <330BC23C.671C@hiwaay.net>
To: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Peter Flynn wrote:
> At 16:29 19/02/97 -0600, you wrote:
> [implementors]
> >Hmm.  You could find some and ask them.  Of course, the love of the ear
> >is to hear what it heard before.  That question usually sets off the
> >platform wars.  Gzip is popular because free, but not a great way to
> >pack up multiple files, so in reality, just compression.  Pkzip can
> >pack multiple files and compress, but it's not free.
> But there are zips which are both free and compress.

True.   SGMLer's have a horror of working software though.
It is more pure to declare than do.
> >should be considered:  fat packets piss off the NetLords.  Small,
> >"guaranteed overnight deliveries" are the way of the web.
> Pshaw. I _have_ overnight delivery on my connection right now, it's so
> damn slow...

Yes, now imagine it as a snake trying to swallow a stylesheet, a DTD, 
a document instance, a catalog, a few miscellaneous applets.
> >Don't let them pick.  Pick smart here.
> No. we tried that with HTML and it was ignored because the programmers
> didn't want the hassle of learning SGML. Picking smart is no guarantee
> of anything, unfortunately.

Possibly.  Some are complaining on the VRML list that the failure 
to nail down a scripting language is the reason we now have so many 
incompatible "world" files.  Others say picking Java would have 
given VRML to Sun, or JavaScript, giving it to Netscape.  So we 
have VRMLScript which is JavaScriptByAnotherName, and still have 
all these Java applets.  Some say, "let the market forces and 
hot content decide" which of course is no decision and guarantees 
the incompatibilities continue because market forces created them 
originally and will continue to create them.

The sun still rises.  Truth is, we decide.
> >Pick the one that can be implemented fastest in XML 1.0.
> *That*'s more like it. Even if it stinks.

Well, I'd hoped for something that didn't remind me of my 
band, but if there is a gig, working equipment is better 
than none, and Peavy amps may buzz, but they still work 
when dropped from a moving truck.

It doesn't have to be perfect.  It has to work and get 
us to XML 2.0.  It should also be cheap and easy.
> >> Let's not make the same mistake.
> >
> >You mean there is another mistake we can make?
> No, we're all perfect here, aren't we...aren't we...? :-)

Just Durand.

Received on Wednesday, 19 February 1997 22:17:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:07 UTC