Karl Eichwalder writes:
> > As an aside, are you sure you want SGML still? You dramatically
> > increase the range of tools available to you if you switch to XML.
> These tools are rather... joung.
Two years old isn't *that* young. aNd *so* much better already that
anything we ever had for SGML. What really good free, widely-used,
software did you ever use with SGML? Clark's SP, of course. and...?
> Norm's recent announcement concerning
> his XSL stylesheets update is an interesting reading.
> As a aside by my side: Enter your data using SGML features; than run
> sgmlnorm/sgml2xml on it and use all these nice XML tools.
maybe. but is it worth the trouble? a few missing end-tags and
> > The TEI is now fully XML,
> Strange, this matter of fact wasn't announce here.
Well, yes, that is a slight embarassment. I keep forgetting that its
still a test release, sorry. But check out the TEI web site, follow
the link to the Guidelines and you'll see.....
> If you want to encode texts those "contraints" are mostly superfluous.
you think data-typing is superfluous?
> And if your data will actually required those contraints you should go
> for a SQL database system (e.g., PostgreSQL).
Oh come, thats harsh. Storing texts in SQL is a pain, although of
course possible. What is wrong with wanting to express the constraint
that <a> can only appear inside <b> if <b> is a child of <c>?
Don't tell that it is easy to say in DTD language....