Henry Thompson wrote:
> > Hmm, the last of these was more than four years ago. And both of
> > them resulted from the W3C's "old" role as a place where vendors can
> > come together to define interoperability profiles of reasonably
> > well-understood technologies.
>
> Um, as regards XML, you're joking, right?
The same thought comes to mind after reading your post...
> Look at the history. It's
> _completely_ unlike HTML, it was way out ahead of what any vendors
> were thinking about, much less trying-and-failing to interoperate. It
> was in fact a lot like XSLT and XML Schema: real new science was done
> in the WGs.
Are you referring to XML 1.0? I always considered it to be a good de jure
codification of de facto best practices in (i.e. most common subset of)
SGML. In that sense, Michael's characterization seems better than "real new
science", let alone a joke...
Evan
