DOCBOOK: Re: Which Variant of DocBook (SGML or XML)?

Norman Walsh <> writes:

> To the greatest extent possible, there are no differences between the
> two versions. With an eye to the future, if you have no SGML legacy,
> you should use the XML version.

With the XML version you're not able to detect "errors" like

  <para><footnote>
    <para>
     <footnote><para></para></footnote>
    </para>
   </footnote>
  </para>

XML lacks inclusion/exlusion exceptions.  Once available, a SCHEME based
validation process might help.  Maybe, a DTD based validation isn't
strong enough for your purposes; in this case you'll have to wait for
a schema implementation.

Marked sections are missing, too.

> Note that you can process the XML version with either XSL or DSSSL
> (because XML is SGML).  (And you could, in theory, process the SGML
> version with XSL too, if someone would write an SGML-based XSLT
> processor.

Isn't it enough to run `sgmlnorm' and `sx' on any SGML document?  I'm
not aware of an XSLT processor which requires an XML schema.

-- 
work :                           |          ------    ,__o
     : http://www.suse.de/~ke/             |         ------   _-\_<,
home :                      |        ------   (*)/'(*)