> 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?
I think the problem is is that SGML has been around since whenever it
was, about the same vintage as TeX (older if you count GML), and with
that power it had essentially zero impact on mainstream applications.
(Although of course it was used in house in many larger companies.)
XML is basically SGML with all the author minimisation and concrete
syntax changes thrown out. and suddenly XML is the greatest thing since
sliced bread, and about to take over the world (Chris' doubts not
So it seems to be the case that the `SGML experience' says that as soon
as you want to move the document anywhere then it should be in a
standard concrete syntax, with all minimisation normalised. ie be XML.
Of course how one personally authors the document is up to the author,
it might be gellmu, or you might use latex and then tex4ht or omega-mml
or frame+SGML or MSOffice2000 or whatever you want.
If however you expect to allow people to edit the transmitted document
and send you back the changed version (eg a co author, or a journal
editor) it makes sense to use a system that really uses the transmitted
XML form of the document, rather than a gellmu or latex->*ml style
translation where it is not necessarily easy to go back.
Within the tex world it makes sense to pass tex documents, but I do not
think it makes sense now to be passing SGML documents that make
essential use of a non standard SGML declaration, and SGML minimisation
features. The number of XML applications appearing increases at a
ridiculous rate, the number of applications that can actually handle
minimised SGML documents is small and static, I fear.