XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

[David Megginson]

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,


David

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
           http://www.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;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)