Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!sun-barr!sun!cairo!tut
From: tut%cairo@Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Want info on SGML
Summary: sgml isn't
Keywords: SGML, document processing, markup
Message-ID: <114143@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 7 Jul 89 01:07:33 GMT
References: <8210005@hp-lsd.HP.COM> <3790@orca.WV.TEK.COM>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 25

This newsgroup hashed over the SGML issue almost one year ago.
The upshot, as I remember, was that people whose livelihoods
depended on SGML thought it was great, while those who didn't
thought it was nearly useless.  The important thing to remember
is, SGML isn't.

SGML != standard generalized markup language

It isn't standard, as there are several tag sets, such as APA
and CALS.  CALS is even a superset of SGML.

It isn't generalized, because it doesn't handle graphics, tables,
or equations.  CALS does, which is why it's a superset of SGML.

It isn't for page markup, but rather, for describing documents
hierarchically.  Kinda like TeX or troff macros!

It isn't a language, but a syntax for describing a language,
like Backus-Naur Form.

The Holy Grail that everybody's looking for is the ability to
readily interchange documents.  So far SGML doesn't help much
in that regard, because common document formatting systems--
TeX, troff, Frame, Interleaf, MSword, WordPerfect, etc.-- don't
read or write SGML.  And that's the bottom line.