X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil]
	[nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil])
Date:         Thu, 3 May 90 09:23:00 N
Reply-To: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1@unido.bitnet>
From: POPPELIER@HUTRUU53.bitnet
Subject:      SGML -- LaTeX
To: Rainer Schoepf <BK4@DHDURZ1.uucp>
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 96

I agree with Nelson. SGML should, in the case of this list, be used
solely to describe the document structure. That was the intention of my
original remark: think about the structure first and define macros LATER.

It's like using EBNF to define the Pascal syntax and it needn't go any
further, in my opinion. But I do believe that sorting names of macros
in existing document styles doesn't bring us any further. If we specify
document syntax first, we can avoid producing styles like book and report,
which appear to be different, but are for 99% identical.

Nico