• From: Paul Prescod <papresco@t...>
• To: "'xml-dev@i...'" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:51:52 -0500

This entire thread is based on the false presumption that XML is
8879:1986 compatible. XML is compatible with today's SGML (actually,
tomorrow's SGML) which has actually changed in many ways to *accomodate
XML*. If this CDATA problem were serious, it would be fixed in SGML
already. It isn't and it isn't. It is just an annoyance and not worth
changing when we have a lot of other more important things on our plate.

 Paul Prescod

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: Must XML be SGML compatible?
    • From: Jarle Stabell <jarle.stabell@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Must XML be SGML compatible?
• Next by Date: case rules
• Previous by thread: RE: Must XML be SGML compatible?
• Next by thread: XML issue of W3J
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread