Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 09:44:56PM +0530, Mukul Gandhi wrote: > Thanks for sharing the historical perspective. Was this an important > architectural decision, while writing the original XML spec (i.e, > every DTD-valid document must also be a valid SGML document) - or to > say, was this a requirement/prerequisite for the original XML spec? Yes. XML was originally called Web-SGML. The entire purpose of XML, originally, was to facilitate the use of (a subset of) SGML on the Web, and, specifically (at first) in Web-browser plugins. > Perhaps, an XML 2.0 activity can rearchitect the XML specs, along the > lines you outlined earlier. Possibly, but I don't see strong enough market benefits to justify the lostt in compatibility and interoperability. The XML promise -- any XML processor can read any XML document -- is an oversimplification, but, even if you tone it down to take "can read" to mean "is entitled to read", the extremely high interoperability story of XML is a large part of its success. Another important success story is of course XHTML -- which relies on a DTD to define the HTML chracter entities. Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
