Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Marcus Carr wrote: > >... > > Documents that are valid, for starters. Well-formed documents are a double-edged > sword, while they may suit the data provider, they might not suit the recipient. In > XML, you're compelled to employ a business rule to ensure that what you get is what > you want. In either case you need to use a business rule to ensure that the data conforms to some *particular* DTD as opposed to being: <!DOCTYPE html [ <!ELEMENT html (bar)> <!-- I'm in total control now! --> ]><foo/> > .. No such ambiguity exists for SGML - documents are either valid, or > rejected (leaving aside the semantics of the markup). Nit: that's not the case for today's SGML standard but I'll agree that that's common in SGML tools. >... > > SGML wouldn't be a thriving growing technology even if XML had never come along. > It's not the sort of technology that was ever going to aquire mass acceptance. I think that's exactly Tim's point. He could have phrased it more charitably. > ... Paul Prescod
|
