- From: <75819671@it.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:23:12 +0200
- To: roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
- cc: www-html@w3.org
Russell O'Connor wrote >Interesting. The advantages of an HTML architecture is that it is >an SGML language. You could extend it with your own elements, or >restrict it. You could rename elements. You can change its >representation with DSSSL, you can create new kinds of links with >Hytime. With SGML you can define parsed and unparsed entities, >etc. mix in different SGML architectures like DSSSL (or what >Math ML could be). There would be even more possibilites >for developers of pages and still no dependencies on server >sides. All done with ISO standards, no need to make anything >new up. The point is that XML is designed to be easily parsed by browsers, SGML does not. Too complicated for the net. You cannot currently extend HTML and rely on your pages to be rendered in most common browsers. That is why XML was developed. There are very interesting comparisions between SGML and XML around that explains why SGML, surely a more complete language, does not suits the criteria for a net-based metalanguage. Dr. Dario de Judicibus - IBM Global Services ICM EMEA South Region Deployment Support Leader EMEA Knowledge Management Consulting Group Tel: +39-06-596-62531 --- Fax: +39-06-596-65432 PHOTO GALLERY http://www.geocities.com/~dejudicibus/gallery/ WORK (e-mail) 75819671@it.ibm.com (pages) http://w3.smns.italy.ibm.com/ HOME (e-mail) ddj@mclink.it (pages) http://www.geocities.com/~dejudicibus/ (icq) 25257587
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 1999 04:24:21 UTC