- From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 22:10:32 -0500
- To: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- CC: Bert Bos <bbos@mygale.inria.fr>, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Paul Prescod wrote: > > > That is not much of a reason. XML is not SGML, except very > > superficially. And HTML is not RTF; except very superficially. > XML is very much SGML. > If being SGML compatible is a "problem" then XML started off with this > problem before it was called XML. Check the description of this group's > goals. We have gone through massive pain to uphold the particular goal of > compatibility despite the protestations of members of the group. We've been > over the issues thorougly. The chance of us undoing all of that work at this > point seems next to nil. Bert might have his way. It depends on the ERB. This is where we find out what good sense is left on the hill. History can be made to say anything people have an incentive to believe. Some say HTML was a good thing; then XML came along and some said it was a bad thing. Truth is, it was just a weak thing forced onto a throne it could not manage. Now, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss, won't get fooled again." "Preserve your memories; they're all that's left you." len
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 1997 23:11:05 UTC