Talk:Comparison of document markup languages
I think DocBook does not have presentational markup. Not more than XHTML does. There are tags <emphasis> and <emphasis role="strong">, but that's just as much as <em> and <strong> in XHTML. 62.176.30.2 19:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*roff as a markup language
What about roff, troff, nroff, groff, etc.? Where do they fit in in this scheme?
Shouldn’t OpenDocument be included here? —Masatran 18:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
OpenDocument is XML-based, but it's not a markup language in the same way these others (including *roff) are; it's not designed to be written by hand in a text editor, but to be the file format for a WYSIWYG word processor. Most would agree that it's a file format more than a markup language of its own.
Lout?
What about Lout? --Mecanismo 19:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Origin of RTF
Isn't RTF based on TeX? At least the syntax is clearly isnpired on it. I don't have any references, though. --193.86.75.124 11:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
MIF information wrong
MIF was available with the first release of FrameMaker in 1986, and Adobe did NOT invent it. It was developed by Frame Technology Corporation which also produced FrameMaker. Adobe acquired Frame Technology in 1995. This is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framemaker. A better history is found at http://www.daube.ch/docu/fmhist00.html
Definition of "Structural markup"
What is structural markup? DocBook and DITA clearly create structural markup. It is very doubtful that HTML, XHTML 1.0 and similar XML grammars create structural markup. They do not define any meaningful document structure. Almost anything can occur in any order. The table showing all the listed DTDs as providing structural markup is meaningless.