• From: David LeBlanc <whisper@a...>
• To: Robin Cover <robin@i...>, xml-dev@i...
• Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:57:37 -0800

It's that the generations are so damned fast is a big part of the problem
imho.
Quality of thought and implementation have given way to the product and
"mind share" cycles of Madison Ave (i.e. the marketers).

What's the incentive to make net stuff conforming? The bits get moved no
matter what the form and it's the receivers that have to adapt (read:
kludge) their software to cope with the semi-sortof markup they get.

Dave LeBlanc

At 01:39 PM 1/21/99 -0600, Robin Cover wrote:
<snip>
>Come to think of it: why should this be "Un*censored*believable"
>given that 99% of Net stuff is illegal HTML, despite a couple
>generations (years) of HTML DTDs?
>
>-rcc
>


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: Word and XML (was: XML standards coherency and so forth)
    • From: Robin Cover <robin@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Forums
• Next by Date: Re: Word and XML (was: XML standards coherency and so forth)
• Previous by thread: Re: Word and XML (was: XML standards coherency and so forth)
• Next by thread: RE: Word and XML (was: XML standards coherency and so forth)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread