Lists Home |
Date Index |
email@example.com (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>Markup is bigger than SGML though. Markup just
>doesn't have a definition stronger than
>"text with a namespace and reserved
>characters" unless one tosses in structure
>and structure leads to the problems. That
>doesn't mean it isn't useful; just that
>it starts the path toward externally declared
>schemata and that toward 'types'. But
>otherwise, markup is only a namespace
>above delimited ASCII, arguably the most
>used form of text-based interchange.
That's a pretty clear picture, though "namespace" brings us into
interesting territory. "Textual content with embedded labels and
structure" is my preferred verbose way to put it, and you're definitely
right that this is larger than SGML.
XML is a usefully constrained subset of those possibilities, and still
the focus of most of my markup work, but it's good at times to remember
the possibilities and not get hung up on the brand.
>All of these, including the infosets, are
>demonstrably useful in proper contexts. What
>we should be strict about is proper contexts.
>I sometimes despair that the often sensible
>advice to "dare to do less" for each specification
>can in aggregate, lead to a loss of rigor nd
>that to ambiguity and complexity.
Fair enough. The gaps between the approaches seem to be growing
constantly, and "doing less" as regards bridges between them doesn't
help that much.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org