Len Bullard wrote:
> That's an interesting point of view, Dave.
> 
> SGML with a DTD worked too.  Those value setting properties made parts of
> the trinity work.  That was important to the point of view that Charles was
> arguing for at the time.  Since the poster decided to emphasize the debates
> between Dr. Goldfarb and Jon et al, it seems fair to remember what it is to
> be an ISO standards editor:  scrupulous correctness.  Also, since arguments
> like "JSON is Just XML with curly brackets", it is fair to point out that
> the SGML Declaration was used to declare delimiters, not the DTD per se.

Two points. The high cost of a compliant SGML parsre and the 'discovery'
of well-formedness seemed to impact the view of the group.

> 
> XML without DTDs do work just as SGML without DTDs worked in the sense that
> as long as there were other means to explicitly declare the system specific
> semantics of tags (think, href is a hardwired attribute used by the Web
> System), then it doesn't matter.  
That's a given. Unknown elements will still screw a system today without
a must-ignore policy or similar. The reality seems to be that we are 
often dealing with repeats though where this rarely happens?

> But frankly, I hate to see Jon and others grind on Charles like that.  He
> pulled the train and kept it going when the rest of us were still trying to
> figure out what a f**kin' hyperlink was.  That's classless. He's a good man
> and he did heroic work that the rest of us are still benefiting from in ways
> large, small, and very profitably. Since they choose to do it in public
> speeches quoted here and elsewhere, I'll grind right back and that's fair
> too.  

I didn't read it as having a go at Charles.  Just telling what happened.
He was in a minority on the no dtd debate.  That happens in any WG.




regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk