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
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 :-)