Re: Competition for PSGML

Syd Bauman <[email protected]> writes:

> While I win points for being funnier, Sebastian is (essentially)
> correct. As the volume of software that doesn't grok DTDs
> (particularly entities) increases, and if future versions of XML do
> not drop the "for compatability with SGML" requirements, particularly
> the rejection of non-deterministic content models, fewer and fewer
> users of XML will use DTDs as time goes on.

I have still to see all the new software ;)  Most of the software I
depend on does not support the schema language (there is more than
one...).  libxml2 just learns RelaxNG, maintainers of DocBook and TEI
didn't publish an official schema thus far.  And HTML?

> Karl asked if I could port our extensions (they are not really
> modifications, mostly just additions and advice) over to 1.3.1;
> however, we still run psgml 1.2.5; is it important to upgrade to 1.3.1
> (which does not appear to be available via SourceForge yet)?

1.3.1 deals much, much better with XML.

I forgot about the details concerning your extensions, but I do remember
I was interested in them.  If you don't have the time for porting, it
might be okay to publish them "asis".


Steinar Bang <[email protected]> writes:

> What I meant to say, was that I have too much legacy stuff in place
> that uses DTDs, and that uses external entities for modularization,
> and for inserting generated text, that I'm not about to throw
> overboard, just to be able to use a new XML mode for Emacs.

Happily there is a tool able to produce an approximated DTD from a
schema (I forgot the name, but it is a tool by James Clark, of course).

-- 
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf