[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thanks John. :-)
Just curious. Did a technical innovation
(eg, automated typesetting, typewriter keyboards)
drive the convergence and subsequent stabilization?
For those who don't follow markup history: automated
typesetting systems drove markup to emerge as the
progenitor of what we have today. The concept has
been around for quite some time. The name belies the
origin.
What we sometimes call "the environment" can include
the politics of the zeitgeist and any other number
of factors. What is usually of most concern are
the systemic requirements. For SGML to emerge into
widespread use, there had to be a widespread system
that could use it. As I said before, the Internet
and the application, the Web, provided infrastructure.
The movement to markup or something like it after that
had to do with at least two sets of requirements:
1. Systemic requirements
2. Conceptual requirements
What we often have problems with when the "history" thread
raises its ugly little head is keeping these two sets of
requirements separated such that we draw useful lessons
from history. It is vital that we understand what markup
conceptually provides (and what of these concepts matters)
and what the system we host it on requires (and what of
that system's requirements are so important that we will
judiciously prune the conceptual requirements for use
on that system). That is the history of XML, SGML, and
markup that matters, IMO, for technical decisions.
The people matter too because the team matters, but that is
a different thread and one which the majority of the principals
involved don't disagree on AFAICT. If it is contentious, at least
for me, it is because the example set by this team will be
and is widely emulated as a pattern for success. Let us bend
that twig to a shape that meets the needs of the markup team for a
century and beyond. Then we will have done a job folks
like Yuri would have approved of. In my view, that matters
more than the technology and I think we do possess the
understanding to achieve it.
len
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:
> But any tweaking of the alphabet has serious implications
> to that framework. How long (John Cowan>?) has our
> standard western alphabet had 26 regular characters?
Well, i and j on the one hand, and u, v, and w (double u or double v)
used to be mere glyphic variants. Michael Everson would know better,
but I think a stable distinction didn't exist until about the 18th
century.
|
