Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Henry Thompson wrote: > > Hmm, the last of these was more than four years ago. And both of > > them resulted from the W3C's "old" role as a place where vendors can > > come together to define interoperability profiles of reasonably > > well-understood technologies. > > Um, as regards XML, you're joking, right? The same thought comes to mind after reading your post... > Look at the history. It's > _completely_ unlike HTML, it was way out ahead of what any vendors > were thinking about, much less trying-and-failing to interoperate. It > was in fact a lot like XSLT and XML Schema: real new science was done > in the WGs. Are you referring to XML 1.0? I always considered it to be a good de jure codification of de facto best practices in (i.e. most common subset of) SGML. In that sense, Michael's characterization seems better than "real new science", let alone a joke... Evan
|
