Re: Element content the real issue?...

On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 12:10:42 -0400, "David G. Durand" <dgd@cs.bu.edu> (David G.
Durand) wrote:

>   We basically cannot afford to process element and non-element content
>differently with regard to whitespace or anything else.
>   ==> So we can't allow any ignored whitespace anywhere without resorting
>to quoting, because of the non-DTD parsing requirement.

Exactly. So having recognized the unavoidable fact, why do you keep trying to
avoid it? I can understand trying to ameliorate its impact, but let us first
face up to the truth: this is the only way we can go.

>   My application of his theories says that we should change as little as
>possible from HTML (the market leader), while adding the minimum we can
>manage to get the most useful new functionality. 

This conclusion contradicts the inescapable fact. His earlier quote says we
should keep things familiar, so I offer this premise:

1. Most people will create XML with a program that hides the real data format,
in which case the "niceness" and "familiarity" of the format are non-issues.

2. People who will create XML with "dumb" editors or mode-assisted (dull?)
editors also have written programs. To them, quoting data is quite familiar and
macros can be written to assist with it.

>I must say that I don't
>see the point of targeting only the SGML community, because they already
>have SGML.

The SGML community needs a lean, mean conforming delivery format, which XML can
be. It will be confusing enough to the market to have SGML and XML. Having a
third "version" of SGML is at least one too many.
Charles F. Goldfarb * Information Management Consulting * +1(408)867-5553
           13075 Paramount Drive * Saratoga CA 95070 * USA
  International Standards Editor * ISO 8879 SGML * ISO/IEC 10744 HyTime
 Prentice-Hall Series Editor * CFG Series on Open Information Management