• To: 'Dave Pawson' <dpawson@n...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:43:08 -0600

I believe it would look like Tim Bray's XML-SW.

len

From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dpawson@n...]

At 11:22 06/02/2003 -0800, Jeff Lowery wrote:
> > So would the XML community be okay with defining a subset of XML?
>
>1.  Nobody agrees on what the subset is

I think it would make an interesting conversation if the original gang of 
?? (less than 10??)
sat down again today, and defined *sgml for the web*, with 20-20 hindsight.

I wonder how todays version would vary from XML as we know it?

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Next by Date: Re: SML: Second Try
• Previous by thread: Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Next by thread: RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread