RE: DTD formal syntax

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Right, and SGML allowed for that by enabling 
minimized productions.  XML took an evolutionary 
step backwards to optimize the process for a 
particular constituency:  the so-called DePH. 
That decision according to those who self-selected 
to make the decisions, was a means to sell 
the product to an immediate customer.  The 
notion was that if you wanted SGML features, 
you could go back to SGML.  That was fallacious 
because the colonization extent of the product 
of the initial customer drives the availability 
of features afterwards, to wit, XML doesn't 
kill of HTML as some thought it would, but 
it kills off SGML.  That was a satisfactory 
outcome for some and why the normative reference 
to SGML was requested vociferously but denied. 

Eventually the compromise that now exists 
emerged and the options were conserved.  Given 
costs, these may not be realistic options, 
but that is the way the market goes given the 
early decisions of the self-selected group.  The 
problem is the behavior of self-selection 
of those who choose choices and then the 
choices can result downstream in behaviors 
that make it difficult to revisit the early 
decisions.  For example, TREX now has a 
low chance of being adopted unless software 
for it becomes quickly available on the 
Microsoft platform.  Even then, because 
that is a feature-rich environment, it may 
not be noticed.

The message is not the medium.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@CS.UCLA.EDU]

Not sure if it is relevant --
XML document is a tree -- edit it as a tree, and you do *not* need any end
tags. End tags are there only for getting the tree out of the string.

I think I like to see the tree and not the start and end-tags.