MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <199811271514.KAA22026@hilbert.math.albany.edu>
            <13922.59462.279452.122152@fell.open.ac.uk>
            <13923.45842.264051.790964@srahtz>
Message-ID:  <199812121442.PAA23256@baghira.npc.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <13923.45842.264051.790964@srahtz>
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:42:53 +0100
From: Joachim Schrod <jschrod@ACM.ORG>
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

>>>>> "SR" == Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK> writes:

SR> Chris Rowley writes:
>> ... mostly about normalisation and concrete syntax.
>>
>> He did not mention the lack of extensibility: was this deliberate?
>>
>> It is tortuously difficult in SGML to have bothe extendabilty and
>> portability; it is therefore impossible to have extendability in XML
>> (correct?).
>>
SR> "tortuously difficult"? but a standard feature of two well known DTDs,
SR> TEI and Docbook.

Do you really want to tell us that TEI is not one of the most complex
DTDs that ever got written? Docbook is not an easily understandable
one, either. At least my staff members (whom I count as being very
good, and they are also versed in XML) have problems in controlling
these complex DTDs.

Could you please bring in other examples? These currently support the
hypothesis that it's "tortuosly difficult".

        Joachim

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joachim Schrod                                  Email: jschrod@acm.org
Net & Publication Consultance GmbH              Tel.:  +49-6074-861530
Roedermark, Germany                             Fax:   +49-6074-861531