From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-24 01:23:04
On 4/23/06, Daniel Walker <daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 4/23/06, Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Daniel Walker wrote:
> > >Actually, is the parser just an SGML parser?
> > >
> > XML is a subset of SGML. SGML is faaaar more complex.
> That's what I said: "XML is a subset of SGML in the sense that SGML is
> less restrictive, so an SGML parser can accept XML files." My point is
> that we know property_tree doesn't have a full XML parser. Is it
> accepting files it should reject, rejecting files it should accept, is
> it closer to permisive SGML or restrictive XML?
Never mind. I knew there was a standard for SGML, but I hadn't really
looked at it. It's completely impractical. I always thought SGML was
basically just XML without balanced tags, namespaces and all the other
XML features; i.e. a combination of HTML and XML without any
keywords/semantics. I know lots of people who mark up data that way
and call it SGML. That's similar to what property_tree expects: the
only overt XML requirement is the <?xml ?> declaration. So, to me it
was sounding more like SGML But yeah, you're right, writing a parser
that supports ISO SGML would be a pain.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk