RE: Background on DSSSL

Subject: RE: Background on DSSSL
From: "Mason, James David (MXM) " <MXM@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:35:24 -0400
Nothing earthshaking, in general nothing that would even be particularly
intelligible to anyone who wasn't involved in the standards committee at the
time. There were some errors of chronology and details about who contributed
what to the standard. 

The most significant issue is that DSSSL could have become a standard
several years earlier than it did. However, slowing down the development
made it possible to increase our understanding of how SGML processing works
and establish a common approach that is shared by DSSSL, HyTime (second
edition), and SGML (with the tecnical corrigenda).

On the one hand, slowing down the process increased the general level of
frustration with ISO and led to some projects' landing in the W3C (e.g.,
XML, XSL). On the other hand, all of the current work, whether in ISO or
W3C, hav benefitted from the things that were learned in the process.

Nothing is ever easy when it comes to document processing (or standards
development related to it).

Jim Mason
SC34 Chairman

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Sebastian Rahtz
> [SMTP:sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:	Thursday, June 24, 1999 3:53 PM
> To:	dssslist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc:	sca@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:	Re: Background on DSSSL
> 
> Sharon Adler writes:
>  > 
>  > You have several errors in your background discussion of DSSSL both
> just on
>  > DSSSL itself and on the relation and timing of the work with HyTime.
>  > 
>  > Thanks.
>  > 
> I wonder what Sharon is "thanking" Ralph for? 
> 
> Is Sharon going to leave us all on tenterhooks or reveal what the
> errors are?
> 
> All agog
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> 
>  DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist


Current Thread