Re: Trying to sum up a bit

>Isn't XML supposed to be compatible with SGML? 

If you can define "compatible with SGML" given the syntactical
variance caused by the use of various features, we might be somewhere
further along.

My real point is that we are *already* invoking features that are not
altogether widely supported in order to make the syntax of XML
slightly more pleasant. Different whitespace handling is just one