Re: RS/RE, again (sorry)
>Sure, as long as you are willing to a) do away with existing SGML parsers
>and b) forgo reliable whitespace removal in element content, which will lead
>to c) no whitespace in element content, or only whitespace in element
>content according to the rules that Microsoft and Netscape dictate.
This is not really true: the rules to eliminate unwanted whitespace
would not be overly complex, and besides, if you are really so keen on
doing exactly the same thing as current SGML tools, you can either:
a) Use them by using the declarations for XML
b) Add a validator/grove transformer that *requires* a DTD, and
which will give you what you want.
>>As long as we have DTD-less parsing, this is the *only* option that
>>will give the same parse tree.
>Not so. We could put information in the instance to differentiate mixed
>content from element content.
Sure, but this has it's own set of (large) usability problems as
people have pointed out.
The easiest thing: use LISP syntax.