[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> writes:
> 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
We could quibble about what constitutes 'new science', but it was the
certainly uncharted territory, and certainly _not_ a brokering of
compromises as regarded existing major web vendor technology -- that
was my main disagreement with Michael Champion.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
