- From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:17:57 -0500
- To: "Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor" <roconnor@uwaterloo.ca>, "W3C HTML" <www-html@w3.org>
What a silly statement. Not really once you understand the architecture of modules. With SGML your browser needs a DTD to be able to interpret the document, or must have inbuilt knowledge of a DTD. With XML a namespace with a style sheet allows any browser to show your XML module the way you want it, no SGMl working parties. I suspect Russel that you belong to the old SGML/DSSSL mafia who can't really believe that the old order has changed! <grin> Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor <roconnor@uwaterloo.ca> To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 10:49 AM Subject: Re: XHTML > On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Frank Boumphrey wrote: > > > SGML based HTML responds too slowly to change, with XML based XHTML it will > > be possible for interested parties to create their own subsets and add them > > to XHTML. > > What a silly statement. It would be just as easy for HTML to evolve in > SGML as it is in XML. No one is forcing you to use one Document Type > Declaration. Arguably you can't really do that anyway. That's why > architecture forms exist. > > -- > Russell O'Connor roconnor@uwaterloo.ca > <http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~roconnor/> > ``And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message'' > -- Anindita Dutta, ``The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy'' >
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 1999 18:06:20 UTC