Re: implementation comments

Deborah A. Lapeyre wrote:
> As XML is shaping up, I see no alternatives for an SGML
> shop but to:
>    1)  Generate XML DTDs on the fly from SGML DTDs, as
>        you need them; or
>    2)  Maintain duplicate XML/SGML DTDs (Ouch); or
>    3)  Generate both XML and SGML DTDs from another
>        source (we're working on this, actually).
> And while I see this as inconvenient I don't see it as any
> sort of a show-stopper.  It looks like XML will be, like all
> standards, an imperfect compromise.  That's OK.

The other alternative is to ignore XML syntax, adopt XML 
or adopt and modify XML linking, then use an SGML conforming 
system.  Not as easy to build; probably easier to sell.

Faced with keeping up what appear on the surface to be
gratuitous incompatibilities, forcing translation at 
the customer site, and breaking the back of the 
SGML standard support and ISO support, it might 
not be the horrible option it seems to be otherwise.

No, I am not suggesting the WG revisit the decisions.
I am saying, that alternative is always there and when 
choosing, the familiar evil is typically the popular one.