>> Depends on your perspective.

>    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?

It's quite unlikely he intended SGML. It's completely possible he 
intended HTML, however.

Note that XHTML is a subset of XML, but HTML is not. (HTML for example 
allows unclosed tags, which are strictly prohibited by XML.)

The intersection of the set of valid XML and HTML fragments has no 
official title that I'm aware of, and the smallest superset of that 
which does have a name is SGML. Hence, SGML is the least-general named 
set. QED.

>> But now we're just splitting hairs...
>
>    But that's the fun of it.

And people think I'm strange because I write computer programs in a 
high-order pure-functional programming language with non-strict 
evaluation semantics and a post-Milner-Hindley type system... ;-)

Post a reply to this message