[Glastonbury] next meeting

[Ian Dickinson]

Very entertaining rant Martin :-)  Sorry if it
stressed your ticker at all.  I pretty much agree with
you, so just a couple of responses below.

Btw, sorry not to have made the LUGOG meeting tonight
- I was going to come but got back too late from work.

> Err . . no.  Not quite.  More exactly, //SGML//
> insists on correct syntax 
> -- and XML is written in SGML, to be strongly
> conformant.  
Well, yes, using SGML there are defined grammar
productions that specify valid XML documents. But I
would claim that most XML developers and/or users in
the world, of whom there are many, do not know much or
anything about SGML. XML has its own cluster of W3C
working groups and standards (though it must be said
that the coming crop of XML standards are not being,
er, universally acclaimed :-).

>   . . . BUT ONLY IF THE DOCTYPE DECLARATION IN THE
> FIRST LINE (you *do* 
> always include a DOCTYPE in your markup, don't you?)
Sure I do.  I only write web pages in validated XHTML
these days, which mandates a doctype declaration.

> //Sorry, but I really don't know of *any* DTD that
> would permit the above crossover between tags.//
Fair enough.  There are lots of HTML parsers that will
admit it though.

> That 
> still doesn't make it valid code for any DTD that I
> know of, though.)
Of course.  The point I was making was that some
people and tools regard "conformant" as "will not
cause a web browser to barf", whereas others regard
confmance as "will validate against a public DTD".

> Ummm . . what XML DTD are you citing?
None.  XML documents don't *require* a DTD, though
it's generally better if you give one.  Some languages
are perfectly well-formed, but cannot be specified as
a DTD.  The XML serialisation of RDF being the main
one I'm familiar with, no doubt there are others.

> Aaarrrggh!
> [Look -- I have a heart condition, right?  If
> there's one thing I *cannot* 
> stand, it's misrepresentation of fact in the history
> of HTML markup.]
> So ...
> In the full spirit of SGML, HTML markup -- before it
> was buggered up by 
> clueless, ignorant users steeped in applemack
> arty-fartiness where the 
> content/structure dichotomy simply doesn't exist and
> cannot even be 
> comprehended -- NEVER purported to represent
> presentational information.
> Got it?
Er, sure :-)

> IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A MEANS OF STRUCTURAL
> REPRESENTATION. RIGHT FROM DAY ONE.
> Anything else 
> was introduced as an attempt by
> clueless gits who didn't 
> understand the first thing about structural markup,
> and thought that 18pt 
> red bragadoccio on an orange background was the best
> thing since ponytails and inch-wide red 
lol!

> Oh, Buddha give me strength!
> This was //ALWAYS// the case, in *ANY* SGML-derived
> markup language.  From the very first HTML DTD.
It may have always been the intention, but it hasn't
always been the case.  At the least, it required a
noticeable course correction from HTML 4.0 to XHTML. I
guess HTML 3.2 was the major departure from the
original vision - would you agree? HTML 1.0 and 2.0
are 
just structural markup, as you say.

Regards,
Ian




	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com