Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:44:31 -0500
And that is precisely the kind of reasoned negotiation
and partnership between the standards organizations
such as ISO and the technical specifications consortia
such as the W3C and the Web3D that Ken North asks for
and others think is beneficial to progress.
We can't do it *all* on open lists. All that people
such as Simon St Laurent have asked for is the
technical reasoning behind decisions. Publishing
blow by blow comments on lists is not required and
will mire us down in Spy Vs Spy debates. Ensuring
that technical decisions get technical review openly
and can be discussed is critical to improving the
specifications and obtaining the trust and confidence
of the implementation community. OASIS is going
in the right direction on those points because
experienced individuals see the good of it.
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Karl Best [mailto:email@example.com]
XML as initially created was supposed to be a true subset of SGML, but such
things as the optional occurence markers in DTD element declarations, and
the empty tag syntax, were not SGML-conformant. So, to keep XML as a true
subset of SGML, SGML had to be tweaked. The W3C XML committee asked the ISO
SGML committee for some minor changes, and they released a revision (not the
right word, but I can't remember what it was called; some sort of silent
change) to the SGML standard in ~1997.
So, XML is not compliant to ISO 8879-1986 as published in 1986, but it is
compliant with ISO 8879 as it exists after the ~1997 change. So any SGML
parser that supports the later version of SGML should also support XML.