James Robertson jamesr at
Sun Nov 21 02:12:34 GMT 1999

At 04:32 21/11/1999 , Julian Reschke wrote:

> > Sean McGrath <digitome at> writes:
> >
> > > Any SML doc is an XML doc but not the other way around.
> > >
> > >     SML < XML < SGML
> >
> > That gets you into the subset dilemma: all conformant XML processors
> > will be able to handle SML, but not all conformant SML processors will
> > be able to handle XML.
>Why would that be a dilemma? That was exactly the goal, correct?
>I really think it would be A Good Thing to have a common name for XML minus
>a list of features...

I think the point is:

If something is XML, it handles all valid XML

Or it doesn't, and it isn't.

If SML cannot support all XML constructs, it
isn't XML. In the same way that XML is not SGML.

That's not to say that SML may not have
value in itself. It's just that a number of
posters have been more than a little lax in
their use of "XML" in regards SML.


James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution
jamesr at

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list