• From: Charles Reitzel <creitzel@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:27:50 -0500 (EST)

We'd be a whole lot closer if Navigator had a decent implementation of XSLT.
People seem unwilling to commit to an IE-only approach, even if based on a
standard, er recommendation.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:41:49 -0800 Tim Bray wrote:
>At 11:41 AM 27/02/01 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
>
> > I think that client-side XML failed simply because 
> > it didn't fill a big enough real need (HTML 4 is 
> > close enough)
>
>I have a problem with your verb tense.  The web is 
>still too slow.  Fatter pipes aren't going to help.  The 
>only way to make it fast is to do some of the work on 
>the (severely underemployed, these days) client, and the 
>only way to do that is to send some useful data there to 
>get chewed on.  So I think client-side XML just
>hasn't got going yet.  To say it had failed, it would be 
>necessary for it to have been tried. -Tim

• Prev by Date: RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
• Next by Date: Re: The relentless march of abstraction
• Previous by thread: RE: The relentless march of abstraction (fwd)
• Next by thread: Where's the Dublin Core when you need one?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread