> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > True, it _is_ xml, but xml is very general, and that syntax doesn't
> > recognise the tags. sgml is a specify form of XML, the one used here...
I
> > don't recall what it stands for, but it's in onde of the README's.
>
> You got it reversed, XML is a specific form of SGML.
Shame on me!
> > Try it out with vim, if you say syntax=sgml, tags like 'para',
'simpara',
> > etc are colored yellow, but if they are not recognised, red.
>
> They are all colored fine for me.. I use vim60 though.
With xml, they are all colored blue... with me, that is, and that's not
vim60 apparantly. I don't know which version sysop installed... I'll ask
them to upgrade.
> The point is that we _are_ using XML Docbook files, not SGML, so the
> syntax should be set appropriately.
I notice that the emacs comment is also mode-sgml, and not xml.
So, you are right, it should be xml from a meaning viewpoint. But the point
of that line is ease-for-the-user. For vim < 6, syntax=sgml works, and
syntax=xml doesn't.
I noticed in the source of PHP a differentiation between vim6+ and vim<6, is
that appropriate here?
By the way, one question: How is the sgml rendering with vim600? Also okay,
or really bad? Is xml better than sgml there?
Jeroen
