Tim Bray tbray at
Mon Nov 22 15:27:53 GMT 1999

At 09:24 AM 11/22/99 +0000, Sean McGrath wrote:
>OK. I see where you are coming from. My position is this:-
>1) SML must be allowed to be born so that it can either
>die of natural causes or flourish. 
>2) SML must be a subset (application profile) of XML.

And SML must not claim, explicitly or implicitly, to "be XML".  SML
may or may not be a good idea.  It would certainly be a bad idea
to give lazy vendors a trapdoor so they could run around announcing
"we support XML" while also rejecting XML 1.0 documents that don't
happen to conform to this subset.  Also bad to give arrogant 
I-don't-mess-with-other-peoples-code junior programmers an excuse to 
write their own partial parsers for fun thus wasting everyone's time and 

XML ain't perfect, but at this point it has pretty darn good 
interoperability.  Messing that up would be a blunder of historic

I would urge W3C to defend its copyright on the name "XML" quite
vigorously in this scenario.

>3) To quote Henry Thompson (I think) "We should stop worrying
>and learn to love xLink". 

Speaking as the long-suffering co-chair of XLink, I predict that we're
finally going to get that job done in the immediate future.  And I think
Henry (if it was him) has a point. -Tim

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list