XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
david at megginson.com
Fri Nov 5 19:26:24 GMT 1999
Paul Prescod <paul at prescod.net> writes:
> I don't really see how having formal, implementable specifications falls
> into the diaper and ducktape category. Does XML wrap us up in ducktape?
> SAX? DOM? HTML 4.0? Perhaps three years ago we should have released a
> one line specification: "SGML may now be used on the Web. DOCTYPE
> declarations are now optional. Otherwise, use your common sense."
Well, I would have made it a couple paragraphs longer, but in essence,
that might have served, except for two problems:
1. The SGML spec is not freely available.
2. XML removes so many details from SGML that it makes more sense to
distribute it as a separate spec than as a set of deltas.
All the best,
p.s. Shouldn't that be "duct tape", Paul and Don? We don't want the
SPCA down on us.
David Megginson david at megginson.com
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev