[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Matt Gushee writes:
> "XML was meant to ..." No, that's revisionism. As I understand it, XML
> *was meant to be* primarily, if not exclusively, for the Web. Which of
> course doesn't mean that other uses are wrong. But if we're going to
> discuss the original motivations for XML--which might help clarify
> things--let's get it right.
Thanks - that's what I was hoping to do. Compare the original
motivations with the results, and see where we've landed.
I'm not questioning that XML is useful, but I am questioning whether
"SGML on the Web" ever really figured out the Web. Given that we still
have friction between HTML and XML, manifested most recently as friction
between HLink and XLink, it seems worth asking.
> In hindsight it's easy to say "Oh yeah, of course you use XSLT for
> HTML output, and XSL-FO for print formats." But in, say, 1997 or -8
> there was no concept yet of XSLT as a separate transformation
> language. And considering what Len said about the old-timers'
> experience with web browsers, there may have been a degree of naivete
> about browser vendors' ability and willingness to support a new
> approach to document rendering.
Those are my memories as well.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
