Re: A good argument for XML

Tom Bradford <bradford653_at_REVERSE-THIS.moc.oohay> writes:

> There are many people that would argue that SGML was no solution at
> all because the document structure was not explicit enough on its
> own to imply any form of validity or well-formedness, thus a DTD was
> required with every parse. XML, in that sense was a step in the
> right direction, [...]

Well, yes, but all it took was to turn off the various short cut options in SGML, and you had exactly the same thing. Those options were bad ideas in the first place, and many of us have them off by default.

-tih

-- 
Don't ascribe to stupidity what can be adequately explained by ignorance.