Re: A28: syntax of markup declarations?

> Hear, hear.  If XML competes with SGML, it's clearly a disaster for
> both of them.  If SGML tools can be used to process XML, both are
> winners.  

Or if there is easy conversion.

> (1) should they later discover needs which XML cannot meet and which
>     SGML can, and

then they may have to write a DTD and do a simple mechanical conversion.

> (2) because it is so important to be in the mainstream of information
>     representation as defined by international standards:

If XML is successful, it may well become an international standard.
But note that HTML 2.0 is on the way to becoming an international standard;
I am not sure that it has helped very much, although it was a great deal
of work to get it tht far.

If you can convert from XML to SGML automatically and 100% reliably,
amenability to SGML tools will always be only a step away.

In the mean-time, if we have a language that is significantly more widely
implemented, and that has a much simpler and clearer specification, your
clients will be happy they chose XML...

I will comment on Tim & Michael's syntax separately -- I _do_ think it
is a sensible approach.  We are not far away from a single unified syntax,
using only element-style markup.  That is an admirable goal, and will be
a great benefit.  It will also reduce the change of confusing XML and SGML
document instances :-)