Xref: utzoo comp.text.sgml:111 comp.text.tex:3273 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!sot-ecs!spqr From: spqr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sebastian Rahtz) Newsgroups: comp.text.sgml,comp.text.tex Subject: Re: What would it take to implement SGML in TeX? Message-ID: Date: 8 Oct 90 21:49:13 GMT References: <1990Sep24.174222.22487@terminator.cc.umich.edu> <3745:Oct805:47:1890@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Sender: spqr@ecs.soton.ac.uk Organization: Southampton University Computer Science Lines: 29 In-reply-to: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu's message of 8 Oct 90 05:47:18 GMT In article <3745:Oct805:47:1890@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: Shouldn't it be possible to implement SGML in TeX? Among other things, this would give SGML I am not sure what you mean; in the simplest case, are you saying `write an SGML DTD which describes LaTeX'? if so, it could be done, I think, if you adopt the widest possible interpretation of the syntax. Or do you mean write a (La)TeX macro package that looked like a common SGML DTD? Remember that SGML isn't a piece of software, so you can't implement it! the the trouble with TeX is the ease with which the user can define new commands... an opportunity for wide use---which it doesn't really deserve, but that's a side issue. Is SGML *designed* for widespread use? so far as I am concerned, its a system for describing documents for interchange with other people. Therefore I will carry on writing in TeX for my own purposes and if I ever want to offer the document to the world, I'll make it conform to SGML-itis and find a DTD. Since I (and all other LaTeX and troff -mm and scribe users) have been writing generic markup for years, there should be no problem :-} ... except describing the syntax of LaTeX unequivocally. -- Sebastian Rahtz S.Rahtz@uk.ac.soton.ecs (JANET) Computer Science S.Rahtz@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bitnet) Southampton S09 5NH, UK S.Rahtz@sot-ecs.uucp (uucp)