On 6/14/07, Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's a bit like HTML<->XML, where the former lacks most of the semantics and makes the information processing - not to speak about a consistent look over several documents - a lot harder.
Actually, that's incorrect. HTML is a markup language with a particular set of elements, some of which have semantic meaning attached and some of which don't. XML, on the other hand, is a means of writing your own markup languages; this has two consequences in this context: 1. It is just as easy—if not easier—to have an XML dialect containing elements with absolutely no meaning. 2. Even if the dialect contains only elements with well-defined semantics, it's still completely meaningless to a generic XML parser. A parser must be intimately familiar with the dialect to understand that any element has semantic meaning. If you were referring to XHTML vs. HTML, I would like to point out that XHTML 1.0 is merely a reformulation of HTML 4.01 in XML. The elements and their semantics are unchanged. XHTML 1.1 modularizes the DTD and adds a few Ruby (annotation, obviously, not language) elements, in addition to a few other minor changes. As for XHTML 2.0, that's still a long way off. :-) -- Aankhen (We have no branches.)
