[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > OK, OK, really nice thing should allow both, because
> > some people need to edit it in a GUI HTML editor,
> > but some people are editing templates in vi / notepad
> > And I think that there is no possible markup that
> > would be good for *both* cases.
>
> You might want to have a look at SGML - you can support both syntaxes by
simply
> defining two SGML declarations. The DTD remains the same for both markup
> schemes but the instances are different. On top of that, you can assign
context
> sensitive behaviour to particular characters from within the DTD, allowing
you
> to process a csv file with a DTD.
>
> This may not be as archaic as it sounds. If you are able to separate the
data
> capture/modification/markup from the downstream usage with a normalisation
> process, then why not? We routinely still use SGML tools at the start of
XML
> projects - when the objective is simply an XML file, pragmatism beats
> standardisation every time.
Can you 'configure' SGML to use *both* { and <%
'mixed' in a same file? Can you 'configure' SGML
for some other tricks with 'separators' ?
If yes, then, perhaps, it may be not a crazy idea
to try re-factoring SGML into XML++ or XML--.
;-)
Maybe, SGML already has all the answers, it
is just hard to understand what was better to throw
out of it and it is the macroprocessing part of
SGML that should not be thrown out ;-)
Rgds.Paul.
PS. I'd greatly appreciate a URL to something like
"SGML Cookbook". Google is good, but some advice
from human being is always better.
Many thanks.
PPS. 'Worse is better' means "no namespaces, but
unique prefixes are sufficient".
So it looks like there is at least one thing that
SGML got 'right' and XML did not.
Hmm... Scary...
|
