Talk:Standard Generalized Markup Language

message: The following has, I think, an error (XML came after HTML, no?):
"HTML was originally designed based on XML tagging but without SGML's emphasis on rigorous markup."
Probably should read:
"HTML was originally designed based on SGML tagging but without SGML's emphasis on rigorous markup."
MarkVolundNYC 17:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Beinsane 07:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline error

message: Unclear: so does the GML of SGML stand for Goldfarb, Mosher and Lorie or Generalized Markup Language?  If it is both that should be mentioned, if its the first it should be cited.
:Officially, the "GML" in the name of the IBM product stands for "Generalized Markup Language"; the gloss 'Goldfarb, Mosher, and Lorie' is a quiet little in-joke.  (And conceivably an hommage to awk, but probably not.)  It would be easy to destroy the humor by making the explanation too explicit. -C.M.Sperberg-McQueen (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that 'Goldfarb, Mosher, and Lorie' was the original name but probably before the macros became an official part of Script. I know that GML was known as Generalized Markup Language when I was using Script in the 1980s when GML was part of Script. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of Abreviation?

message: On the wish list: some more syntax samples, highlighting what looks like HTML and XML, and what's unlike them. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm searching and searching, but to my dismay most links on SGML are dead, the people having SGML material believing there to be no need to keep maintaining it! Sigh!! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Done, got it from DocBook references. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wish: syntax

message: To me a language defines a set of documents that are allowable, as does a syntax.
SGML is class of languages, right?  so I take SGML and a DTD and get a markup language, right?
Anyway if I got it completely wrong just destroy it please.  But I did not like the way it
was written.  I would have to stretch my idea of a language too far, or I would feel too lost
about what the DTD is doing.  Thanks Wikivek 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People really abuse (stretch) the meaning of language. Some people say that we can create new languages using XML. I am not familiar with SGML enough to comment further but I agree that the DTDs make things confusing. To the extent that SGML requires a specific syntax regardless of the DTD, SGML is a language. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax section seemed incomprehensible 

message: I feel the syntax part is asymmetric, describing only a few features that some editor believed were important... (I'm not saying they are not, but there are plenty of other features which are not mentioned). I would vote for collecting a list of features and parts of SGML declaration, in order to start describing them. Rjgodoy (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wish: syntax (2) 

message: I was also tempted to "fix" this example, but then I realized it was right because.
It shows a net-enabling start-tag followed by a null end-tag. Per ISO 8879:1986/Cor.2:1999(E), K.4.3:
[18] net-enabling start-tag =
 stago,
 generic identifier specification, 
 attribute specification list,
 s*,
 nestc
and, per ISO 8879, 7.5.1.3:
[23] null end-tag = 
  NET 
Wen using the reference concrete syntax, we have: 
STAGO <
NETSC /
NET   /
Thus <QUOTE// is the correct form according to the reference concrete syntax.
Note: XML defines NETSC as "/" and NET and ">" so this construct looks as <Quote/> (see note 23 in page 8 of ISO 8879:1986/Cor.2:1999(E)). 
However, this article is not about XML. I would prefer to keep examples as close as possible to the reference syntax (it would be a mess if each example uses their own syntax).
I will add a sentence about the XML equivalent of <QUOTE//
See also 
Rjgodoy (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  </QUOTE// 

message: I have put in some changes to correct the over-emphasis on minutae of syntax. In particular, I have quoted the standard's Annex A on what generalized markup is, since if you don't understand that you don't understand anything. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Less emphasis on syntax, more focus on rationale

message: I am not happy about the description of SGML as a metalanguage in the intro. While it may be true (certainly for original SGML, though not for SGML (WWW) and XML with no DTD or schema) it diverts attention too early on a technical point. I believe that Tim Bray is trying to pitch the vocabulary of XML entry at high-school level, so I think it might be useful to re-work the first intro line in this regard. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Other suggestions

message: I have added a section on formal characterization. Rationale follows.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal characterization

message: This article is completely uncritical of SGML despite the fact that there are many people who consider SGML a model of what a good standard should not be. There were many well-intentioned but deeply misguided design decisions behind SGML, and huge amounts of people‘s time wasted in dealing with the legacy left behind by SGML. In particular, the fact that HTML4 was formally specified as an SGML application but no actual Web user agents implemented as such has left a real mess behind. For one thing it makes it very difficult (or even impossible) to provide HTML4 validation tools that actually give useful feedback to Web authors without at the same time violating some of the arcane conformance requirements that are in the HTML4 spec only due to it being yoked to SGML misfeatures.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideshowbarker (talk • contribs) 01:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's fair to blame SGML for the whole "pretend HTML is SGML" mess; isn't that really the W3C's fault? (Fortunately, the WHATWG has somehow pulled the HTML WG's head out of the sand, and HTML5 is actually pretty close to what is implemented and used.) Not sure how this makes useful validation feedback likely to involve violating the HTML4 spec, though: validators aren't exactly required to be silent just because a document is conforming. --—SamB (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: “Criticisms” section needed

message: IBM's Generalized Markup Language is not actually a language, it is a set of macros. The Wikipedia page for IBM's GML says it is a set of macros (and I know from my experience with it that it is). I think it is worth mentioning in the history of SGML that IBM's Generalized Markup Language is a set of macros. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not actually a language 

message: In that sentence, rigorously amplifies defined, so a comma is unwanted. TEDickey (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  rigorously defined  

message: : HTML was theoretically an example of an SGML-based language until HTML 5, which browsers cannot parse as SGML for compatibility reasons.
I'm not sure that's entirely true; and even if it is, it was true well before HTML5 -- probably since HTML 2.0, but definitely HTML 4.0. It's largely a semantic argument bandied about by purists, basically whether or not something is SGML or XML compliant if it's parsing guidelines are not unforgivably razor strict. Certainly you can make HTML4/5 conform to that strictness and make the purists happy (as if), but in practice, people just don't bother. It's like saying a car with automatic transmission isn't a car (and I know there's people who do say that). - 64.187.160.52 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been following Usenet since HTML5 came out, so if Yukka hasn't opined on whether it's SGML compliant or not, I wouldn't dare to say! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML5