• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>
• Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:41:24 +0000
• In-reply-to: <4827EC373E03DB44AC2AB3900430896B0265B4@w...>

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?

regards DaveP.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• References:
  • RE: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
    • From: Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>

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