[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com, email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:14:44 -0500
>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
So the company with Asian customers provides the customers with
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
>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
>... 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
specify and implement the solutions to these. Meanwhile, the existing XML code keeps