OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   SGML->XML->? (was Re: [xml-dev] SML: Second Try)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

From: "Joe English" <jenglish@flightlab.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

Seairth Jacobs


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS