Lists Home |
Date Index |
"Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com> wrote:
| You insist that the Web needs a total cleanup, perhaps a rebirth,
| before it's worthy of further consideration.
Actually, no. The problem with "SGML on the web" is with the article
"the". One could think about "SGML on a web", and work towards it, but
the idea SGML/XML can coexist on the same web is a geeky delusion.
The social phenomenon being ignored is Gresham's Law ("cheap currency
drives out the dear".)
| I'm not entirely sure why you expect Web developers to drop everything
| and rush to the SGML model.
That's just it. I don't.
| (I'm not entirely sure why you find describing margins in CSS as
| something opposed to your "visions", either.)
Perhaps I should marvel at the "thinking about structure", or perhaps at
the grasp thereof, that went into class names such as "fourhundred" and
"fifty" and "orangebox".
Oh, I get it. Do as they say, not as they do, right?
| Coming from the other side, I've always felt the Web had as much to
| teach the SGML folks as the other way around.
| That notion seems to have gone over badly since the response to my very
| first post here, however.
This puzzles me. Were you suggesting that CDATA declared content is a
useful feature? (If only to rationalize inlining of scripts in a way that
required no smarts on the part of browser vendors?)
| I suspect we'd agree, however, that the synthesis at the W3C is rarely
| what I'd like.