Re: XML vrs SGML tools [was Re: Capitalizing on HTML (was ...)]
At 02:17 AM 9/20/96 GMT, Charles F. Goldfarb wrote:
>It seems like the two Pauls are agreeing that
I can only speak for me. =)
>1. XML has to be easy for SGML editors (and word-processor add-ons) to generate
>and for arbitrary browsers to read.
Right. That's why I'm worried about this RS/RE correction proposal. I don't
think today's SGML editors will support it. Otherwise, the proposal is quite
elegant and simple.
>We needn't worry about XML-only editors or
>dedicated XML browsers because there won't be any.
I would word this a little differently: "We can't _depend_ on XML-only
editors or dedicated XML browsers because there MAY NOT be any." (especially
in the short term)
>2. The browsers need to be able to work without accessing a DTD.