Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: documentation as info

[Tupshin Harper]

Tom Lord wrote:

> Are you really at a loss to find many of the available critiques of
> XML?  or to evaluate the quality of the available source packages that
> purport to implement this or that subset of reams of related
> standards?  I would have thought that, by now, that stuff was taken
> "as read".
>  
No, I am not. I have read much of it. There is no consensus, however.

>    > I'm not going to defend every usage of XML, since some are certainly 
>    > misguided, but neither do I agree that it is inherently harmful and/or 
>    > useless. Keep in mind that the XML portion of this thread was 
>    > specifically in comparison to SGML. 
>
>
> I believe the quote that sparked it was:
>
>    >>>> (1) It's butt-ugly, like all sgml derivatives. [...]
>
> In which context, these questions:
>
>    > Are you willing to say that SGML == 
>    > good and XML == evil? Or do you think structured markup languages are 
>    > bad in general for document production?
>
> bear no relevance.
>
> What exactly do you include in the scope of "structured markup
> languages [...] for document production"?   I can't imagine _any_
> language for document production that wouldn't be reasonably described
> as "structured".
>
> In other words, the "Or" in your question is absurd.
>  
The or was a part of a (gramatically poor) enumeration of the possible 
interpretations that I could glean from your statements.

I'm willing to include lots of things in the category of "structured 
makup languages", including XML, SGML, HTML, TeX, RTF, Wiki markup, 
PS/PDF, and many other.

If you don't think that markup languages are bad, but you do think that 
XML and SGML are bad (or butt-ugly), then I'm curious in what way (as 
just a markup language) you think that XML and SGML are bad incarnations 
of the concept of "structured markup language".

-Tupshin