[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
No. The first pass was based on RTF and then
Anders Berglund stepped in along with Dan
Connoly. They used a DTD others have mentioned.
My original source on that was Yuri Rubinsky.
HTML followed a development path common to markup
applications: sprinkle and formalize; then redo
and refactor. Nothing wrong with that.
Markup owes many people. Read Goldfarb's
history for an authoritative source.
Hypertext is a technology that found its
niche AFTER it became obsolete. Even
now, inline anchors are something of a
convenience, not a necessity.
len
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
>3/15/2002 5:01:49 PM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:
>
>>If we had to invent XML from scratch, would it
>>have mattered? If HTML had been invented from
>>scratch, would it have succeeded?
Also, a factual/historical question -- Wasn't HTML more or less
"invented from scratch" and SGML used to legitimize it
post hoc?
That is, HTML arguably just latched on the
the "markup" meme, not SGML in
all its glory. Likewise, one could characterize the
core ideas in XML as "HTML with a more rigid and
easy-to-parse syntax, and with a flexible set of
tags." Without SGML, something similar to HTML and
XML would probably have come along by now... maybe with
LISP-ish or troff-ish (shudder!) syntax. How violently
would people who were in the hypertext world of ten
years ago disagree?
|
