- From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:23:55 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- CC: David Sheets <sheets@alum.mit.edu>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
> there has never really been a complete implementation. Not true. Software Exoterica's Omnimark [1] was a complete SGML implementation. I know this since I worked closely with John McFadden on the ISO SGML test suite which Omnimark was able to pass. /paulc [1] Now http://www.stilo.com/ Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 -----Original Message----- From: annevankesteren@gmail.com [mailto:annevankesteren@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 8:55 AM To: Martynas Jusevičius Cc: David Sheets; Yehuda Katz; Sam Ruby; www-tag@w3.org Subject: Re: Draft [URL] reference update to informative text On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org> wrote: > Last time browser vendors applied this kind of reasoning we got > <blink> elements, table layouts, and tag soup. > I guess history is meant to repeat itself. I'm not sure how that follows. <blink> was an easter egg that got out of hand. Table layouts were done because CSS sucked for non-trivial layout. And tag soup existed because the people in charge of defining HTML parsing at the time deferred to SGML for that, a system so complex that there has never really been a complete implementation. All of these have meanwhile been largely addressed. Not having tracked how URLs are actually used and implemented has certainly lead to "URL soup". That's what I've been working on addressing for a while now. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 00:24:25 UTC