Lists Home |
Date Index |
Marcus Carr wrote:
> Documents that are valid, for starters. Well-formed documents are a double-edged
> sword, while they may suit the data provider, they might not suit the recipient. In
> XML, you're compelled to employ a business rule to ensure that what you get is what
> you want.
In either case you need to use a business rule to ensure that the data
conforms to some *particular* DTD as opposed to being:
<!DOCTYPE html [
<!ELEMENT html (bar)> <!-- I'm in total control now! -->
> .. No such ambiguity exists for SGML - documents are either valid, or
> rejected (leaving aside the semantics of the markup).
Nit: that's not the case for today's SGML standard but I'll agree that
that's common in SGML tools.
> SGML wouldn't be a thriving growing technology even if XML had never come along.
> It's not the sort of technology that was ever going to aquire mass acceptance.
I think that's exactly Tim's point. He could have phrased it more