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. :-)
(We have no branches.)

Reply via email to