Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: "Joe English" <jenglish@f...> > > SGML already supports multiple alternate syntaxes, > including XML. In fact that was one of the problems > XML was intended to solve: the designers wanted a > *single* SGML profile suitable for use on the Web. > > And, strictly speaking, we *do* still have only SGML. > An enhanced and extended SGML with a well-designed > canonical minimal profile, to be sure, but still > just SGML. So would the XML community be okay with defining a subset of XML? For instance, suppose we defined a formal subset that did not contain DTDs (which implicitly also means, id, idref, notations, etc.) or mixed content and did not use the <?xml?> PI. Technically both XML and SGML processors would understand it, just as SGML understands XML. But such a subset would be used in ways that XML wouldn't, just as XML is used in ways that SGML isn't. From what I read of the permathreads, some people are against creating a subset of XML. At the same time, they are prefectly comfortable with using XML as a subset of SGML. <aside>creating alterantives that are not strictly parsable by XML and SGML processors is another issue that I am not talking about here. I understand people's arguements with this, though I don't necessarily agree with some of them.</aside> --- Seairth Jacobs seairth@s...
|
