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

Re: Normative refs to 8879/10744?

From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 19:35:58 -0600
Message-ID: <3310F07E.5BE5@hiwaay.net>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Tim Bray wrote:
> At the moment, the first sentence of the abstract of the XML spec reads:
>  Extensible Markup Language (XML) is an extremely simple dialect of SGML
>  which is completely described in this document.
> The first paragraph of the section 1.0, Introduction, reads:
>  Extensible Markup Language, abbreviated XML, describes a class of data
>  objects called XML documents which are stored on computers, and partially
>  describes the behavior of programs which process these objects. XML is an
>  application profile or restricted form of SGML, the Standard Generalized
>  Markup Language [ISO 8879].

Good.  What of ISO 10744?  If architectural forms are used, 
what is the relationship?  On HTML, Dan Connoly has made sure 
that HTML to that degree designers thought prudent, is an 
application of SGML.  Will XML Links remain legal HyTime?

I know some don't care about that.  I do.

> It seems that we mostly agree that the the rest of the spec succeeds
> pretty well in making these sentences true.  However, it is important
> (at least to me) that we avoid any perception (however idiotic) that
> we are working against SGML, and I at least become deeply irritated
> when I read demands for our resignation based on such imputations.

Yes.  That was a stupid remark on my part.  I apologize.

The problem is drift.  Does XML remain a subset in the 
sense the Dave suggests?  How is that maintained?

> Len, could you suggest a redraft of the two sentences above, or
> another set of modifications of the text of the spec, that would meet
> your goal of making the 8879 reference normative?

No.  I do have a question.

What is the dynamic relationship?  Does XML go on being 
a consortium specification for an application profile 
of an ISO specification?  
> Speaking only for myself, it seems that making the reference more
> normative would be uncontroversially good, if this could be done without
> giving the impression that anyone actually has to *read* 8879 or 10744
> to do XML safely, correctly, and legally.  -T.

That is exactly right.

I suggest if you need the opinion that matters, ask Charles.

Received on Sunday, 23 February 1997 20:36:01 UTC

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