[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

re: (XML is SGML, part 1,002) Re: RELAX to ISO

• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:48:35 -0400 (EDT)

Rick JELLIFFE writes:

 > ISO specs have different formats and constraints and politics to
 > W3C. A spec can only have one controller, human nature being what
 > it is.  For example, ISO has its ISO HTML (a subset of HTML 4), but
 > its links to W3C HTML are by initial design and the continued will
 > of SC34 to keep compatability with W3C HTML.

This might be a good time to explain what specific concrete benefits
have accrued to users so far from SC34's work with ISO HTML, other
than the ability to get around certain government and industry
standardization policies.

Is HTML-based software more stable or easier to implement as a result?
Are browsers more interoperable?  Does the industry pay more attention
to conformance and accessibility because of ISO HTML?


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: (XML is SGML, part 1,002) Re: RELAX to ISO
    • From: KenNorth <KenNorth@e...>
  • Re: (XML is SGML, part 1,002) Re: RELAX to ISO
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>

• References:
  • Re: RELAX to ISO
    • From: Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@y...>
  • Re: RELAX to ISO
    • From: KenNorth <KenNorth@e...>
  • Re: RELAX to ISO
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • Re: RELAX to ISO
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
  • Re: RELAX to ISO
    • From: KenNorth <KenNorth@e...>
  • (XML is SGML, part 1,002) Re: RELAX to ISO
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Unnecessary well-formedness constraint
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Previous by thread: (XML is SGML, part 1,002) Re: RELAX to ISO
• Next by thread: Re: (XML is SGML, part 1,002) Re: RELAX to ISO
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread