[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Evan Lenz" <evan@evanlenz.net> writes:
> Are you referring to XML 1.0? I always considered it to be a good de jure
> codification of de facto best practices in (i.e. most common subset of)
> SGML. In that sense, Michael's characterization seems better than "real new
> science", let alone a joke...
See my reply to Tim Bray -- I withdraw the word 'science' as it
clearly is confusing the issue, but stand by my claim that substantive
work was done in the WG: XML went a long way beyond any existing
technology from major web vendors.
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]
|
