Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>>     That's not unicode. It's XML.
> >
> >> Perhaps you mean SGML? ;-)
> >
> >    I don't think that makes it non-XML.

> Depends on your perspective.

> XML is a subset of SGML, and therefore every XML fragment is also an 
> SGML fragment.

> On the other hand, nothing about the fragment specifically suggests XML, 
> and not one of the multitude of over SGML subsets. In the face of such 
> uncertainty, you might argue that describing it as SGML entails the 
> fewest assumptions.

  But how likely is it that the original poster had SGML in mind when he
wrote those codes instead of XML? Who uses the entirety of SGML nowadays?

> But now we're just splitting hairs...

  But that's the fun of it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message