[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Um, as regards XML, you're joking, right? Look at the history. It's
> _completely_ unlike HTML, it was way out ahead of what any vendors
> were thinking about, much less trying-and-failing to interoperate. It
> was in fact a lot like XSLT and XML Schema: real new science was done
> in the WGs.
Er, I don't see it that way. We took the 5% of SGML that was widely
used, threw away the rest, insisted on using URIs for external
reference, and allowed skipping the DTD. The only really significant
new items were, I think:
- draconian error-handling
- rigid insistence on Unicode chars and nothing but
- the encoding signaling trick
Not much new science there. I also think that the W3C excels when it
formalizes what has already been proven to work. -Tim
|
