Re: Allocated chapter numbers for specific chapter content

[eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com]

"Ned Bedinger" wrote on 10/27/2004 02:27:43 AM:
> I said at the time that I would chip away at reading 
> the standards and let him know if/how I think what I
> said still makes a case.

> So, I've spent some time looking at historical  XML and SGML. At
> this point, stopping short of the tricky area where SGML 
> supposedly can *by definition* do anything that XML can, I don't have 
> anything to add to the previous discussion.

It's an awful lot of very dull and convoluted reading isn't it. :p

Don't know what your sources were, but for anyone else 
http://xml.coverpages.org/xml.html is a good collection of articles. And 
http://xml.coverpages.org/xml.html#sgml-xml is a group of XML and/versus 
SGML articles.

Theoretically, SGML can do everything that XML can. Unfortunately a number 
of the SGML functions/definitions were very difficult to implement in 
parsers. If you look at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml.html you'll see 
the detailed differences between the two. Some differences make it easier 
for computers and more difficult for end-users (such as not allowing 
Unclosed start-tags, Unclosed end-tags, Empty start-tags , or Empty 
end-tags). Other changes make it more difficult/complex for DTD/Structure 
designers (removal of inclusions and exclusions) while once again making 
it easier for the processing engines/parsers.

Perhaps that's where the "simpler" notion came from and why it's so 
misplaced when discussing end-user/writer interaction with SGML/XML. The 
'simpler' part is the backroom programming and processing, not the text 
entry and tagging. Also, much of the "unused" SGML standard was unused due 
to a mix of lack of interest and the complexity of supporting the various 
complex tagging and inclusion/exclusion possibilities. Since the adoption 
of XML, which seems to have made some nonSGML compliant parsers and 
processors XML compliant by removing some of the most complex 
requirements, many other standards and developments have far surpassed the 
'complex' SGML standards. Namespaces, XLink, Xpath, and others in my 
understanding are resurrections of "failed", "shelved", or otherwise under 
used SGML attempts. Some revived because they may have been easier to 
implement, others simply because the added enthusiasm and hype surrounding 
XML attracted enough talent and interest to drive the projects forward.

Eric L. Dunn
Senior Technical Writer

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l 

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.