Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Len Bullard wrote: > That's an interesting point of view, Dave. > > SGML with a DTD worked too. Those value setting properties made parts of > the trinity work. That was important to the point of view that Charles was > arguing for at the time. Since the poster decided to emphasize the debates > between Dr. Goldfarb and Jon et al, it seems fair to remember what it is to > be an ISO standards editor: scrupulous correctness. Also, since arguments > like "JSON is Just XML with curly brackets", it is fair to point out that > the SGML Declaration was used to declare delimiters, not the DTD per se. Two points. The high cost of a compliant SGML parsre and the 'discovery' of well-formedness seemed to impact the view of the group. > > XML without DTDs do work just as SGML without DTDs worked in the sense that > as long as there were other means to explicitly declare the system specific > semantics of tags (think, href is a hardwired attribute used by the Web > System), then it doesn't matter. That's a given. Unknown elements will still screw a system today without a must-ignore policy or similar. The reality seems to be that we are often dealing with repeats though where this rarely happens? > But frankly, I hate to see Jon and others grind on Charles like that. He > pulled the train and kept it going when the rest of us were still trying to > figure out what a f**kin' hyperlink was. That's classless. He's a good man > and he did heroic work that the rest of us are still benefiting from in ways > large, small, and very profitably. Since they choose to do it in public > speeches quoted here and elsewhere, I'll grind right back and that's fair > too. I didn't read it as having a go at Charles. Just telling what happened. He was in a minority on the no dtd debate. That happens in any WG. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
