Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation

Jon Bosak wrote:
> 
> | > I aggree. But I *do* wish we could stop referring to SGML files as
> | > "legacy".  Surely SGML->XML is a "down-translation" not an
> | > "up-translation".
> |
> | And the language in fact obscures what the most likely application
> | of XML is:  a delivery format on the Web for SGML.
> 
> Which is (surprise!) what we're trying to do here.

Right. Sort of a Duh, but in the blizzard of alligators, it 
is good to remember which particular swamp is being drained.

> Is it time to point to our activity statement again?
> 
> http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/SGML/Activity
 
Sure, but in preparing the FAQ, public announcements, 
pleas for shareware, the gotchas should be pointed out.

It looks trivial, but it is quite a bit of work to 
translate all of this, change the relevant policy 
documents, etc.  Then they get to learn about all of 
the linking features, processing specs.  Busy two 
years ahead.  Peter MR is pointing out something 
of interest and that is, without tools that do 
the chores, the concepts are trivial, but the grunt 
work isn't.  Two tracks:  translation for XML tools 
of existing SGML, and output from SGML tools where 
the work continues in SGML, but the delivery format 
is XML.

Later, as the WG8 works out the details for the TC and 
establishes an SGML-Lite built on XML, all of the 
information about how SGML -> XML translations occur 
should be stated with a minimum of fuss.  We've taught 
them so long that the DTD is sacrosanct, PIs are Bad, 
etc, now we have to be ready to calm the waters.

Get out the long staff.

len

Received on Friday, 21 February 1997 09:18:46 UTC