- From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:06:48 -0500
- To: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
Paul Prescod wrote: > > len bullard wrote: > > I don't think so. That would be true only for an instance. > > It says nothing about the schemata. That is probably the > > point. > > A document is composed of an instance and a DTD. For the document to > conform to SGML, both must conform to SGML. That is interesting but if it were the case, why would anyone have problems with a clear normative reference? This looks like a legalistic approach that doesn't adequately express the intent. The problem is in the definition of "the document". It's a fascinating problem. By comparison to the way this has been worked out by the VRML Consortium, one could infer the W3C behavior is mercurial. Let's see how the ERB works it out. But without a normative reference, and given the weak position of the W3C with respect to member conformance, I'd say XML has less than half the same chance HTML had of remaining a stable standard. For a long lifecycle format, that is a failure for this process and unfortunately for this membership, the acid test of whether it is worth moving to XML from SGML except for trivial information. Without the safeguards which only conformance guarantees, it isn't worth the expense. len
Received on Monday, 30 June 1997 07:07:12 UTC