From: Mark Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2005 - 15:27:36 CST
Not according to what I have heard from a number of experts in SGML / XML
whom I respect: apparently because of the complexity of SGML, there has
never existed a parser that was fully conformant to the SGML spec. I believe
that was one of the main motivating factors behind XML, to make a fully
specified, easily implementable 'subset' of SGML.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marion Gunn" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:48
Subject: Re: Encoded rendering instructions (was Unicode's Mandate)
> Dear God, I cut my teeth on SGML over 20 yrs ago (that was in purely
> academic circles, which we must can add to Philippe's 'edition and news
> industries' ref. below). SGML still wins hands down over everything else
> for stability, robustness, reversibility, platform-independence and
> longevity (or so I believe).
> Scríobh Philippe Verdy:
> > ...
> > Yes but XML is not the only choice. You can create non strictly
> > markup with SGML instead of XML.
> > SGML parsing is much more complicate than XML, but SGML has been used
> > much longer in the edition and news industries, and it allows creating
> > several parallel hierarchies on the same document.
> > With XML, the only way to do that is to split the document into as many
> > nodes as needed, give them each a distinct id, and then create separate
> > hierarchies with references to the actual node ids....
> Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
> 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an
> Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
> * firstname.lastname@example.org * email@example.com *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 10 2005 - 15:28:48 CST