On Jun 06, 2006, at 20:25, Bullard, Claude L ((Len)) wrote:
> Except microformats are a bit of Hytime:  the arch forms.

As one of those brats who isn't aware computing existed before XML  
did, I am bound to ask: "What isn't?" :)

> Interesting: given all of the various projects over the years, if one
> started with SGML again looking at the various projects, what would  
> the
> subset be today?  Or would it be a superset now (SGML almost had a
> binary but the roof blew in just as that was happening)?

Given how much heat there's been around both subsetting XML and an  
equivalent efficient syntax for it, I wonder how far from consensus  
we'd be now, ten years down the lane. Enough of XML to capture an  
infoset comprising Document, Element, Attribute, Characters,  
Comments, and perhaps PIs and entity references, but no more? Binary  
as a separate syntax with pretty much the same stuff? Or with a  
little extra super simple typing?

I never quite found out what had happened to SGML-B, the available  
online docs indicate an intention, and then some form of ELE seems to  
have happened.

-- 
Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist
    Expway, http://expway.com/