• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 14:16:21 -0800
• In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030206193857.00a87e78@p...>
• References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030206193857.00a87e78@p...>

Dave Pawson wrote:
> 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?


My bet: it would look almost exactly like XML-SW (XML 1.0,
minus DTDs and entities, plus XML Base, plus the Infoset, 
plus XML Namespaces) minus XML Namespaces.

(Or maybe XML Namespaces would be included, but only
out of fear that whatever was invented next to replace
it would be even worse.)


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
    • From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>

• References:
  • RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
    • From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Next by Date: RE: Urgent !!
• 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