[rfc-i] New proposal for "canonical and others"
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Sun Jun 17 02:16:42 PDT 2012
On 2012/06/17 18:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Down level again, draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-02 seems
> to assume that XML is a stable format, unlike HTML. I'm not so sure
> about that; we might have to regress another level and say that
> our format is defined in SGML (even if, in practice, it is based
> on a specific version of some dialect of SGML such as a current
> version of XML or HTML).
Oh, no, please. SGML has lots of nobs to turn and tweak that proved to
be virtually useless (you can choose other characters in place of '<'
and '>', and so on) or outright counterproductive. And while it's not
dead, XML is way more straightforward, with many more (and way cheaper)
More information about the rfc-interest