• From: "Julian Reschke" <reschke@m...>
• To: "David Megginson" <david@m...>,<xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 18:32:18 +0100

> From: owner-xml-dev@i... [mailto:owner-xml-dev@i...]On Behalf Of
> David Megginson
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 2:14 PM
> To: xml-dev@i...
> Subject: Re: SGML, XML and SML
>
>
> Sean McGrath <digitome@i...> writes:
>
> > Any SML doc is an XML doc but not the other way around.
> >
> > 	SML < XML < SGML
>
> That gets you into the subset dilemma: all conformant XML processors
> will be able to handle SML, but not all conformant SML processors will
> be able to handle XML.

Why would that be a dilemma? That was exactly the goal, correct?

I really think it would be A Good Thing to have a common name for XML minus
a list of features...



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...)

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

• References:
  • Re: SGML, XML and SML
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SGML, XML and SML
• Next by Date: Funny things about XML gizmos
• Previous by thread: Re: SGML, XML and SML
• Next by thread: RE: SGML, XML and SML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread