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

Paul Prescod writes:

 > As I understand 15.3, A
 > Conforming SGML System does not have to support short references. Is RS/RE
 > worth breaking compatibility with a majority of SGML systems?

I don't know, maybe.  I don't know of a sufficiently comprehensive
survey of SGML systems to even know for sure when we are or are not
being compatible with a majority of them.

So, my problem wasn't so much with your argument as it was in trying
to figure out how to interpret point #1 of design principal three.
"Existing SGML tools shall be able to read and write XML data".

In the absence of that comprehensive survey of tools, I jumped
to the conclusion that the best assurance of meeting that goal
is to make sure that all XML documents conform to ISO 8879 as
it stands today.  That led me to the idea that is was OK to
use any part of SGML that might offer solutions in meeting the
other design principles. 

Now, if we want to define "existing SGML tools" as "any system
meeting the requirements of section 15.3",  I know what our
boundaries are, and know that stupid net tricks and fixed
shortrefs are out the door.   

Is this how we want to interpret design principle three?


William D. Lindsey
+1 (303) 672-8954

Follow-Ups: References: