Talk:List of document markup languages
DITA but not XSL-FO?
DITA is not a markup language. It's an architecture that outputs to a number of different markup languages. XSL-FO is a markup language. DITA often outputs to XSL-FO from which it is rendered to PDF or print. XSL-FO is also use independently of DITA by publishers like O'Reilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Major vs. Minor
I think this differentiation is bad. If we want to split the list in two, we should differentiate between "standardized" vs. "application defined" markup languages.
- I agree--how is this supposed to be defined? --Miss Dark 19:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Rationale for major vs minor
What's the rationale for whether a language goes in Major or Minor? For example EAD is in Minor but it's a W3C standard and is used by nearly a hundred major institutions in the United States and England. The Online Archive of California alone has 5000+ finding aids in EAD that are available online... --Bookgrrl 05:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would pursue a definition of major (or well known) as being used mainly by the greater public and minor as used by specific professionals. For example SBML, CellML, and ThermoML are for professionals in systems biology, cell biology and empirical chemistry, respectively. These would be considered minor even if they are not currently on the list. ChemGamer (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Changed Major/minor to well-/lesser-known
… which is still suboptimal. I suggest one list, which is not sorted alphabetically, but grouped by topic, e.g.
Langec 14:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
A quick note: XHTML MP is not replaced by XHTML Basic as MP is in fact based on XHTML Basic. Changed appropriate part.
Here is a "fast to read" and "easy to edit" list!
XML and SGML aren't markup languages
In spite of their names, XML and SGML don't define markup languages but only the syntax of markup languages that conform to XML and SGML, respectively. XML and SGML should be moved to a different category/heading (removing them from the list would probably confuse too many people). --ChristopheS (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're absolutely perfectly right. Stressing their "meta" nature would be a good thing, although how to do it is a little unclear for me, because XML and SGML is a theme that is repeated a little here and a little there. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
HTML not inspired by SGML
The text read as HTML being inspired by SGML which of course is a factual error that occurs now and then. HTML occurred long before SGML. SGML was designed using the general structure of HTML as an inspiration. HTML never reached SGML-hood even if some intended so. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- HTML: 1980, SGML: ~1986. Unless time travel is already invented so ... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- SGML became an ISO standard in 1986, but work on it started much earlier at IBM. HTML was not created in 1980; 1980 was when Tim Berners-Lee proposed and prototyped ENQUIRE. SGML predates HTML, which was created by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN around 1990. According to the document HTML Materials (W3C), Tim Berners-Lee drafted "a somewhat informal reference on the HTML elements" in 1991. Apparently, he first mentioned HTML in October 1991. The first real HTML specification, HTML 1.0 dates from June 1993: Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). Internet Draft, June 1993. That specification also contains an SGML DTD. SGML definitely predates HTML. Whether HTML is strictly speaking true SGML is another matter, but what is the evidence that it wasn't inspired by SGML? --ChristopheS (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
XML not compatible with SGML
XML is not compatible with SGML, and not intended to become ... ever. SGML allows singleton markups like <HR> without any </HR> ever occurring (example that is valid in HTML, and might be valid in SGML provided that it is defined in the DTD and is defined singleton). Such a singleton markup isn't valid in XML and will never be. XML requires that such a singleton is written <HR></HR> or, as an equivalent short-form <HR/>. XML does not accept the SGML shortcut <bold/this text is bold/ as a replacement for <bold>this text is bold<bold/>, and it will never do. XML is thus not compatible with SGML. Now, I'm going to change this factual error in the text. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- XML is directly derived from SGML. XML is compatible with SGML but not the other way around. hAl (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Rursus said: "XML is not compatible with SGML, and not intended to become ... ever." The XML Specification says: "XML shall be compatible with SGML." (section "Origins and Goals"). The conclusion should be obvious. I've often used an SGML parser to validate XML documents that had a DTD. If that is not a form of compatibility, please tell us what your definition of compatibility is. --ChristopheS (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a list of markuplanguages. Not a list of mini articles decribing markup languages. A whole bunch of overly long description that doubles up on the information in the respective articles. Only a minimum description or of the formats should be listed here (or even no description at all. hAl (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)