Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Rick Jelliffe" <email@example.com>
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:58:38 +1000
From: Marcus Carr <email@example.com>
>Kay Michael wrote:
>> Some of the argument against abbreviated end tags is psychological:
>> allowed too many such options, and it caused parsers to become
>> incompatible. So the SGML oldies have an inbuilt distaste for them.
>Not this one - I still use SGML parsers specifically because they do
make it easier to mark up
>data by inserting the minimum number of tags.
I think there are two aspects:
1) SGML is at heart a compiler compiler; to complain that it
variant syntaxes is like complaining that lex allows different delimiter
that is the point of it.
2) SGML'86 allows different implementation to implement only parts
of the optional feature set, but did not provide a way to name or manage
these (i.e., invoking the SGML declaration using a formal public
This in turn made it too difficult to create any brand identity: the
could not self-describe its brand of syntax. XML is largely a specific
Web-SGML declaration with a good brand-identity mechanism.
(N.b. despite the Allette email address, I don't work there. I just
email account there.)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)