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