• From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:04:49 -0800

>If something is XML, it handles all valid XML
>documents.
>
>Or it doesn't, and it isn't.
>
>If SML cannot support all XML constructs, it
>isn't XML. In the same way that XML is not SGML.

We never said SML is XML.  SML is a subset of XML.
Specifically, it meets the production rule of the
external parsed entity minus CDATA section, PI, and
comments.

You are right that SML is not XML in the same sense
that XML is not SGML.  That reasoning only justifies
a distinguishable name away from XML.

Best,

Don Park    -   mailto:donpark@d...
Docuverse   -   http://www.docuverse.com


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: SGML, XML and SML
    • From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: SGML, XML and SML
• Next by Date: Baroque CSS (was: Why do we write standards?)
• Previous by thread: RE: SGML, XML and SML
• Next by thread: RE: SGML, XML and SML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread