JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: >> Again, how is XML more flexible than GEDCOM? The flexibility, if any, >> has to be built into the semantics--the DTD and what is allowed to >> link to what. I may complain about areas where GEDCOM is a bit rigid, >> but overall, it's MORE flexible than many software implementations. > If each piece of software was now able to produce XML-compliant output of > the data that it currently outputs in "GEDCOM format", a look at it's > DTD/Schema would reveal where it varied from the "baseline" LDS spec. If they can't be forced to comply with a spec, they can't be forced write an accurate DTD. > How can you say that is "less flexible" than "GEDCOM"?? I don't. I say the general-purpose XML structure is not more flexible than the GEDCOM structure. Flexibility, if any, is in the semantics, the restrictions or lack thereof. That is, if the software actually correctly implements those semantics. Which leads to what I did say: that GEDCOM, for all its flaws, is more flexible than many programs that claim to implement it. -- Wes Groleau Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?