Re: LYNX-DEV Internal MIME types

[Christopher R. Maden]

[Al Gilman]
> The argument against SGML is a little more complicated.  Here is the
> metaphorical version: SGML is too narrow and rigid.  It is like a
> straight-jacket.  We can expect everyone to wear clothes, but not
> straight-jackets.
> 
> SGML forces us to write the rules in unenforceably strict ways, like
> Prohibition.
> 
> To write more savvy rules that you can stick to, you need a
> sufficiently flexible fabric to cut them from.  SGML doesn't cut it
> there.  XML tries to be more regular and thereby more flexible.
> We'll see how they do.

XML allows the innovative concept of "well-formed" documents.  These
are documents that have elements that start and end, nest, and have
full attribute specifications.  THEY NEED NOT COMPLY TO A CONTENT
MODEL.  This is a first, and is something of an SGML heresy.

The accessibility benefit from XML is that things will be labelled as
WHAT THEY ARE.  ("Call a spade a <spade>," says Peter Flynn.)  If the
publisher didn't provide an audio spreadsheet, a visually impaired
user can look at the source and *figure out what the author meant*!
This is *not* something that can be done with HTML; a <p> might
contain information without which deaths will occur, or it might be a
digression - there's no difference.  In XML, the author could label it
a <warning> or a <fluff>, and the end-user can tell what was meant and
apply their own semantics to it.

XML will, hopefully, make it easy to provide lots of information about
information - with more to work with, everyone wins.

-Chris
-- 
Christopher R. Maden                  One Richmond Square
DynaText SIT Technical Support        Providence, RI 02906 USA
Inso Corporation                      +1.401.421.9550 (voice)
Electronic Publishing Solutions       +1.401.521.2030 (facsimile)
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;