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>
            <199812121442.PAA23256@baghira.npc.de>
Message-ID:  <13940.58122.82745.913275@srahtz>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199812121442.PAA23256@baghira.npc.de>
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:06:02 +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

Joachim Schrod writes:
 > Do you really want to tell us that TEI is not one of the most complex
 > DTDs that ever got written?
no. but its used quite a lot.

 >  Docbook is not an easily understandable one, either.
plenty of people seem to manage with it

 > Could you please bring in other examples? These currently support the
 > hypothesis that it's "tortuosly difficult".
the fact that Docbook and TEI are themselves complex does not
demonstrate that the extensibiliy features were/are hard to add.

no, i dont have any other convincing examples. but if i asked you to
develop a DTD, and said I wanted some extensibility, you would say
"sure, no problem, lets see what you need", i bet.

sebastian