William F. Hammond writes:
> One can speculate about why SGML has been such a well kept secret. It
> takes some work to appreciate it. That does not means that it does
> not work nor that there are not reliable free tools nor that it would
> not be fairly easy once we come to understand what it can do for us to
> generate tools that are optimized for our purposes.
you would have enjoyed a keynote at MT 98 by Brian "Scribe" Reid, where
he basically repeated a talk he gave in 1981. it was an effective
demonstration that being "right" and "working" markup stuff
has zero impact on most people, who simply dont *want* generic markup...
> Note: HTML 2.0, HTML 3.2, and HTML 4 all use different SGML declarations,
> none the default.
and no HTML browser enforces validation, does it?
> For this purpose one should perhaps view an SGML document type as a
> decl/dtd pair. Of course, there is no decl for an XML.
oh come. there is very much a decl for XML!!! its vital for parsing
XML with SGML tools!
> Obviously, to the extent that it is sensible to adopt different formats
> for different purposes, it is desirable to have automatic processing to
> faciliate conversions. Many such conversions should be fairly easy.
by which we see why LaTeX is unpopular in production workflows. that
translates to "10% failure"