Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Henry S. Thompson wrote: > Um, as regards XML, you're joking, right? 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. Er, I don't see it that way. We took the 5% of SGML that was widely used, threw away the rest, insisted on using URIs for external reference, and allowed skipping the DTD. The only really significant new items were, I think: - draconian error-handling - rigid insistence on Unicode chars and nothing but - the encoding signaling trick Not much new science there. I also think that the W3C excels when it formalizes what has already been proven to work. -Tim
|
