- From: Ambrose Li <acli@acli.interlog.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 01:26:37 -0400 (EDT)
- To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 11:04:51AM -0400, Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor wrote:
> The W3C has neither compromised on a standard that reflects what people
> use, nor have they stuck to an ideal markup language. They are left in
> some wishy-washy middle ground that none are satisfied with. The W3C seem
> to be bent on redesigning existing international standards for no good
> reason.
>
> XML <-> SGML
> DOM <-> groves
> CSS/XSL <-> DSSSL
I would also want to hear some real reasons why XML had come to existence;
I still can't understand the point of XML except as a way to force people
to write good markup. (I don't think that will work out.)
And CSS seems to me only as a way to avoid LISP, which is rather silly as
LISP seems to be becoming more mainstream these days.
> But the W3C has possibly developed some good standards. HTTP 1.1 is
> pretty good as far as I understand, although I don't know much about the
> protocol. PNG is a great standard, but also stuffers from a lack of
> implementation from the consortium's members.
IIRC PNG wasn't developed by the W3C. Or someone please correct me.
--
Ambrose Li <ai337@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
http://www.interlog.com/~acli/
"A good style should show no sign of effort;
what is written should seem a happy accident." -- Somerset Maugham.
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 1999 04:41:15 UTC