[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: XML vrs SGML tools [was Re: Capitalizing on HTML (was ...)]



Charles writes
>  It seems like the two Pauls are agreeing that 
>  
>  1. XML has to be easy for SGML editors (and word-processor add-ons)
>  to generate and for arbitrary browsers to read. We needn't worry
>  about XML-only editors or dedicated XML browsers because there
>  won't be any.
>  
>  2. The browsers need to be able to work without accessing a DTD.
>  
>  Is that correct?
>  --

I'm still holding out for

2'. The browsers (not the editors) need to be able to work without
accessing a full DTD.  Absence of optional information about content
model type implies absence of empty elements and uniform treatment of
whitespace.  Absence of optional information about attributes implies
no CONREFs or implicit defaults.

Servers which provide such information and clients who use it are
strongly preferred.  Servers which intentionally serve documents WITH
e.g. empty elements or absent default attributes WITHOUT the necessary
relevant information, and clients which do the wrong thing (as opposed
to politely declining to play) when BOTH ARE present, are strictly
non-conforming.

ht


References: