Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "Joe English" <email@example.com>
> SGML already supports multiple alternate syntaxes,
> including XML. In fact that was one of the problems
> XML was intended to solve: the designers wanted a
> *single* SGML profile suitable for use on the Web.
> And, strictly speaking, we *do* still have only SGML.
> An enhanced and extended SGML with a well-designed
> canonical minimal profile, to be sure, but still
> just SGML.
So would the XML community be okay with defining a subset of XML? For
instance, suppose we defined a formal subset that did not contain DTDs
(which implicitly also means, id, idref, notations, etc.) or mixed content
and did not use the <?xml?> PI. Technically both XML and SGML processors
would understand it, just as SGML understands XML. But such a subset would
be used in ways that XML wouldn't, just as XML is used in ways that SGML
From what I read of the permathreads, some people are against creating a
subset of XML. At the same time, they are prefectly comfortable with using
XML as a subset of SGML.
<aside>creating alterantives that are not strictly parsable by XML and SGML
processors is another issue that I am not talking about here. I understand
people's arguements with this, though I don't necessarily agree with some of