🚀 go-pugleaf

In article AA00807@lani.corp.frame.com.frame, hajagos@frame.com (Lani Hajagos) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been some questions raised about FrameBuilder's support for
> SGML and what constitutes "native SGML support". It is hoped that this
> statement clarifies Frame's position.
> 
> SGML is both a methodology for modelling the contents of a set of
> documents, and a syntax for representing the model and identifying
> informational elements within the contents of a document. In developing
> FrameBuilder, Frame Technology Corp. has chosen to concentrate on the
> former. FrameBuilder provides user-friendly tools that create and
> manipulate documents that conform to the SGML model in a WYSIWYG manner
> that bypasses the syntax of SGML.
> 
... 
> 
> So what does "native SGML support" really mean? Frame Technology's
> definition is the ability to represent the document model and
> validate a document instance against that model, and the ability to
> transform SGML syntax into an internal representation and vice versa.
> 

It is nice to see a message from an authority at Frame Technology in this
news group.  Thanks!    

I have no trouble understanding the distinction between syntax and semantics
and agree that semantics is the more important of the two.
But when you write that FrameBuilder supports writing documents that "conform
to the SGML model", what do you mean exactly?   Are you claiming that there
is a one-to-one mapping between FrameBuilder documents and SGML
documents?   Or only that some (or even most) SGML documents can be mapped into FrameBuilder, and vice versa?

If you are only making this weaker claim, which may be fine for many applications,
just what parts of the SGML model of documents are not supported?

Thanks again.

---
Thomas F. Gordon
GMD, FIT; Artificial Intelligence Research Division
5205 Sankt Augustin 1 / Germany
email: thomas.gordon@gmd.de;  phone: (+49 2241) 14-2665