From: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com
[mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
>Someone will "embrace and extend" XML to fix the NEL problem,
So the company with the special problem fixes it in their code.
Meanwhile the existing XML code keeps working.
>someone else will "fix" their parser to handle Unicode 3.1 the way their
Asian customers want to use it
So the company with Asian customers provides the customers with special
code.
Meanwhile, the existing XML code keeps working
>somebody other than the W3C will try to standardize a different flavor of
"SGML for the Web", .
So perhaps the legal owner of SGML, ISO, will create a flavor of SGML
through a publicly owned declaration alternative to the privately owned W3C
specification thus following the letter and intent of the SGML standard.
Meanwhile, the existing XML code keeps working. Or, a private organization
will do as the W3C, a private organization has done, and will create a
private alternative to the W3C product thus keeping the costs of the effort
contained within that private organization. Meanwhile, the existing XML
code keeps working at the same cost.
>various big companies will tell their customers to ignore the failed
experiment of markup standards and
>stick with their proprietary solutions
That won't happen. There is too much existing working XML code.
>... and pretty soon we'll have a situation that would make the XML 1.0 /
1.1 compatibility problems look
>trivial by comparison.
Or we have a variety of public and private solutions to specific problems
whose costs are borne by
those who specify and implement the solutions to these. Meanwhile, the
existing XML code keeps working.
And the downside is?
Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard <http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard>
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h