MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <199811271514.KAA22026@hilbert.math.albany.edu>
Message-ID:  <13918.51341.592903.793574@srahtz>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199811271514.KAA22026@hilbert.math.albany.edu>
Date:         Fri, 27 Nov 1998 15:43:09 +0000
From: Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: portable LaTeX
Status: R

William F. Hammond writes:
 > But haven't I been saying here for several weeks that I think it more
 > sensible to use the additional strength of sgml relative to xml while
 > working on an authoring platform?  It is, upon transliteration -- but
what you proposed is not valid SGML either, unless you have an amazing
document declaration

 > certainly not char-by-char transliteration -- valid sgml under the
 > didactic gellmu dtd, which is subordinate to a non-reference sgml
 > declaration.
maybe i should look again if that really is valid... if so, apologies.

 > And we understand, don't we, when xml made from my sgml dialect is
 > *parsed*, the parse stream looks just like the parse stream from the
 > sgml.
sorry, i dont recognize the concept of an SGML "dialect". if it conforms
to the ISO standard, its SGML, otherwise its not.

 > We do understand, don't we, that elisp under GNU Emacs is not just
 > a scripting language but rather a full lisp that can be run either
 > interactively in Emacs or else in batch mode.  We're NOT talking about
 > clever merging of "sh", "sed" and "gawk".  And we have, moreover, the
so? i fail to see the relevance. elisp is a great language, i am sure.

 > Of course, if one is happy writing verbose xml, then one does that.
 > It's just that since I have this persistent LaTeX habit and find this
 > a convenient way to write sgml that can be robustly translated to xml,
 > I thought that others might also find this to be a personal
 > convenience.
assuming, for the sake of argument that your \documenttype{article} is
valid SGML, how many software tools support it as such? after all, how
many _fully_ compliant SGML parsers were ever written? 2 or 3 at most?

 > And when I come across a good legacy document such as the LaTeX3
 > prospectus (part of the LaTeX2E distribution) by Mittelbach and
 > Rowley, it is not that much work to make it legal sgml via the
 > transliterator.
confused again. so you *dont* write valid SGML?

Sebastian