Re: XML, HTML, SGML, life, the universe, and everything

> From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>

> It is absolutely the unanimous intent of the ERB that existing SGML
> tools be able to deal with XML, and there have been significant design
> compromises in XML in order to make this happen.  Paul Grosso's assertion:
>  I have sensed a lot of people trying to give
>  lip service to the claim that XML is a subset of SGML--at least in
>  spirit if not in fact--and it's refreshing to have you admit that
>  this is not your intent.  It's not your intention that the base of 
>  existing SGML authoring tools will handle XML.
> is simply incorrect.  XML is a subset of SGML in spirit and in fact, and
> XML is designed so that the adjustments required in existing SGML tools
> are trivial.  Paul, any chance of getting you to back off on that a bit?

Sure.  It appears I was mistaken about the intentions of the ERB with
respect to using existing SGML tools.  I'm sorry for the misinformation,
but I hope my early, relatively semi-private confusion (more private
than in front of hundreds at SGML '96 or thousands elsewhere) allows
us all to benefit.

I have heard it clearly now that XML is a subset of SGML, even if most
existing SGML will require some, admittedly minor, conversion to turn
it into valid (or well-formed) XML.

Is there anything else that needs to be done to your standard SGML 
declaration for a Basic document other than

and whatever has to be done to the character set description (and
ignore capacities and quantities) to get it to be sufficient (if
admittedly more than necessary) to allow an SGML parser to parse
valid XML properly (disregarding the RE/space detail)?