[DOC-SIG] Comparing SGML DTDs
Wed, 12 Nov 1997 23:40:17 +0100
> There is no reason that SGML should be harder to parse than TIM if
> we restrict ourselves to a subset. Really the only thing that's very hard
> about generic SGML is automatic tag omission. If we forgo that (as
> TIM does) then SGML is not really hard to parse.
I'd say the most important issue here is whether it's hard to write
or not. I don't think so, but I haven't digged into any serious DTD
Has anyone looked at RTF<->SGML conversion? Guess that could
allow people to use Frame or Word (FWIW, I'm writing my book
in Word, with an RTF template created by Frame, and the resulting
files are converted to SGML by the ORA wizards... don't ask me
how they do it, though).
Or is the Emacs SGML mode good enough?
(On the other hand, I'm sure I'll have to pay for "voting against" the
benevolent dictator... and I've had enough flames in my mailbox
arrogantly-and-simple-minded-ly y'rs /F
DOC-SIG - SIG for the Python Documentation Project
send messages to: email@example.com
administrivia to: firstname.lastname@example.org