William F. Hammond writes:
> But haven't I been saying here for several weeks that I think it more
> sensible to use the additional strength of sgml relative to xml while
> working on an authoring platform? It is, upon transliteration -- but
what you proposed is not valid SGML either, unless you have an amazing
document declaration
> certainly not char-by-char transliteration -- valid sgml under the
> didactic gellmu dtd, which is subordinate to a non-reference sgml
> declaration.
maybe i should look again if that really is valid... if so, apologies.
> And we understand, don't we, when xml made from my sgml dialect is
> *parsed*, the parse stream looks just like the parse stream from the
> sgml.
sorry, i dont recognize the concept of an SGML "dialect". if it conforms
to the ISO standard, its SGML, otherwise its not.
> We do understand, don't we, that elisp under GNU Emacs is not just
> a scripting language but rather a full lisp that can be run either
> interactively in Emacs or else in batch mode. We're NOT talking about
> clever merging of "sh", "sed" and "gawk". And we have, moreover, the
so? i fail to see the relevance. elisp is a great language, i am sure.
> Of course, if one is happy writing verbose xml, then one does that.
> It's just that since I have this persistent LaTeX habit and find this
> a convenient way to write sgml that can be robustly translated to xml,
> I thought that others might also find this to be a personal
> convenience.
assuming, for the sake of argument that your \documenttype{article} is
valid SGML, how many software tools support it as such? after all, how
many _fully_ compliant SGML parsers were ever written? 2 or 3 at most?
> And when I come across a good legacy document such as the LaTeX3
> prospectus (part of the LaTeX2E distribution) by Mittelbach and
> Rowley, it is not that much work to make it legal sgml via the
> transliterator.
confused again. so you *dont* write valid SGML?
Sebastian
|