Re: Encaspulation: What to export

[G. B. <nonlegitur@nmhp.invalid>]

Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
>; SGML was 
> designed to not require parsing and all of these other formats kept the 
> basic design of SGML.

SGML as opposed to misrepresentations of what is, 
by definition, and design, is configurable so as to support
writers who like to omit, e.g. closing tags.
This is just one example of when SGML may
require substantial amounts of parsing in order to find
the (set of) permissible sentence structures.
Somewhat like an error correcting parser.

I agree that a fail fast reader of a serialized tree
is not a parser.

Full SGML, it’s not-grammar-defining parts at least,
is more like Markdown. The latter is notoriously 
hard to parse correctly, given the many ways in
which writers can make reasonable mistakes which
are therefore to be recognized and corrected , by Markdown
parsers. Most are not mature enough to cope.
And markdown typically doesn’t even have
comments.