RE: RELAX to ISO
Simon St.Laurent wrote: "The distinction is still useful in contexts where SGML features matter - and in contexts where SGML's extra features are seen as a burden rather than a blessing" and "Yes, I own the SGML Handbook. No, I don't recommend that XML developers read it. They don't need it, and they _shouldn't_ need it." For us XML developers, who don't need to read the SGML Handbook, what are these extra features of SGML over XML, that are sometimes seen as a blessing? My *impression* is that while SGML is more complicated (esp. its DTDs), fundamentally you can express the same information in XML, and XML is SGML without the cruft. I admit that I have formed that impression as someone whose information on SGML comes solely from learning about XML, and who has never worked with SGML directly (not counting HTML, an SGML app). Maybe it is a mistaken impression. However I've never seen any big XML vs. SGML debates, or any disgruntled SGML'ers flaming XML. Are we newbies missing out on some of the merits of SGML? Would there ever be a case where someone starting a brand new project today, with no need for any legacy support, would choose to use SGML over XML, because of some of the culled functionality is useful/needed?
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format