Last week I attended a meeting of localizers, at which documentation on XML
was being pressed into hot & sticky hands (an English idiom which it is
safe to ignore, if not understood). The general consensus there was that
incipient XML was being very heavily pushed as an alternative to html by
SUN and MICROSOFT in collaboration (as an alternative which would eliminate
markup language altogether from the actual text to be transferred). Can
anyone add to this information?
At 06:33 -0700 97/05/27, Unicode Discussion wrote:
>With waivering faith I wrote:
>> HTML certainly is an interesting alternative to plain text because it
>> is so universal (and, hopefully, with a stable foundation). And it
>> allows to include illustrations, annotations, &c.
>Coincidently, I was reading last nite (ironically, in "iX", a German
>magazine) about XML (eXtensible Markup Language) which, says the
>article, could replace (in the mid term) HTML as the lingua franca of
>the Web. So much for that idea...
>Es lebe plain text! (long live ~)
-- Marion Gunn, Everson Gunn Teoranta 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire Gutháin: +353 1 478-2597, +353 1 283-9396 http://www.indigo.ie/egt 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire (Ireland)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:34 EDT