On Tuesday 27 November 2001 13:28, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> > Could anyone please elaborate on what exactly these features are,
> > and why, if the statement is correct, SGML is "a more satisfactory
> > solution for the creation and long-time storage of complex
> > documents".
> I see a number of areas you might want to consider:
> - for hand-authoring, omitted end tags, quote-less attributes, and
> short references are mighty handy. on the other hand, its easier
> just to not hand-author....
What editors or word processors would you recommend.
Are any freeware?
If one of the freeware editors is PSGML [?] on EMACS where can one find a
Also, even if you use hand-authoring shortcuts, environments such as emacs
will still have an option to expand the shortcuts to a cannonical XML form.
> - you may find features of XML DTDs irritating, viz the lack of
> inclusion and exclusion. but since we now have schema languages
> which are even better, I dont see this as an issue
What is a "schema" language and where would a beginner go to find out more?
> - if the text is *massive*, omitted end tags could make a real
> difference in file size. something like the BNC, where practically
> every word is tagged, blows up in size alarmingly. do you care?
Even more than for storage this *IS* a practical consideration for
How much of the XML redundancy will "just go away" when the file is
compressed using something like a zip algorithm?
Would it be useful to have an XML2SGML pre-processor that would do something
like take an XML DTD convert it to an isomorphic SGML DTD and SGML header
allowing for an approximation of minimal expressed SGML size for data
Would another language like that used for OpenJade FO conversions be even
better suited to XML pre-compression?
> - obscure SGML features like CONCUR might turn you on
They might indeed. Of course, at present applications that implement the
more obscure features remain vaporous.
Nat'l Endowment for the Humanities 2002 req M$ 121
Nat'l Endowment for Science: SBS 2001 req M$ 175
Nat'l Endowment for Science: Total 2001 req M$ 5529
Humanities are not well funded in the USA.
mail:[log in to unmask]