Talk:Comparison of document markup languages

Lout?

What about Lout? --Mecanismo 19:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Don't think that there's all that much specific similarity other than backslashes and curly brackets... AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

S1000D

S1000D is one big international standard for technical publications, especially used in the aerospace and defence industry. Schema and stylesheets are publically available.

It might be quoted in the article too.

home: http://www.s1000d.org/

Suggestion to merge Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office Open XML formats into this article

Objection. The Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office Open XML formats article appears to contain a large amount of relevant information that cannot be condensed into table form. Much of this information would be lost if the merger took place. —gorgan_almighty 11:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A better place for such information about the ODF vs OOXML debate is http://www.iosn.net/open-standards/organizations/ODFA%20UKAG%20Technical%20White%20Paper.pdf This is much more technically detailed and less politicised than the proposed merge. Perhaps a reference to the above pdf would be sufficient for this site.

The ODF/XML formats are very highly publicized, and as such deserve their own article.

Object to merge. There is heavy politics and computer related news reports specifically about competition between these two formats. OOXML was created as a response to ODF and this article is necessary. --AlexOv Shaolin 02:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge List of ML's to here, but not Comparison of ODF and OOXML format or licensing

I have tagged "Comparison of OpenDocument and Office Open XML licensing" to merge to "Comparison of OpenDocument and Office Open XML formats". I think this would make more sense than merging either of those articles to here. I do think that the "List of document markup languages" can be merged with this article to some advantage. - Bcharles 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the above objection and no defense for merge, i removed the tags to merge with "Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office Open XML formats". - Bcharles 09:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Latest stable version" column

I don't find this information particularly useful or interesting, but maybe I'm in the minority. In any case, what usefulness the information has depends on it being strictly accurate. But I think the column is unlikely to stay accurate for very long. New versions will be released often, and no one will think to update the article accordingly. Therefore I suggest that the column be deleted. —134.242.21.254 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this column is not relevant: Version numbers are not something which can be used to compare these languages. Therefore I will delete it. --Marko knoebl (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "control code"

The term "control code", as used in the markup type column, is not explained although Wikipedia in general redirects it to "control character". That interpretation is however incorrect in at least the case of TeX, and I think also nroff. 81.231.39.161 15:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand

I tagged this article with {{expand}} template. I think that it can be expanded with i.e. compability tables, etc. I'm not really into this subject, but this table looks kinda small for me, and does not contain much information. Hołek ҉ 08:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General information: Creator column

I think that renaming the Creator column to Maintainer would be more accurate. Some standards have been created by one company, and their stewardship have later been transfered to another organization. For example, if MIF were standardized by ECMA, the creator would remain Frame, but the maintainer would become ECMA. Or HTML was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, but is maintained by W3C. If nobody object this (small) change, I will do it in a few days. Hervegirod (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DARPA project w3.org and Curl ML

Given the involvement of Tim Berners-Lee in the DARPA project at MIT, it seems rather odd that the MIT Curl web content markup language of Steve Ward and others (now www.curl.com) is not in this comparison. MIT spun-off Curl which is now part of Sumisho. On the Document Markup Languages page, Curl is only in the SEE ALSO section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) 17:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC) G. Robert Shiplett 17:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) [reply]

ABC

Lillypond but no ABC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc_notation)?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.14.86 (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.docx?

What about the default document markup language for the most popular office suite on the market? Shouldn't Microsoft's .docx format be on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.54.58 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Creole Ok?

I was looking a round and could not find Creole on the page or in the tables. I will add it unless there is a reason not to Tharple (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of document markup languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050923154045/http://docbook.org/oasis/intro.html to http://docbook.org/oasis/intro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RTF is not a markup language

And its page says this explicitly here: "RTF is a data format for saving and sharing documents, not a markup language; it is not intended for intuitive and easy typing by a human." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsilverst (talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it as requested. Aaronshenhao (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dual entries or multiple entries for languages built on other languages

I've updated the article to add GML and LaTeX, and that raised a general question. When one language is an extension of another, e.g., roff/troff, TeX/LaTeX, should there be a single consolidated entry or separate entries. For the nonce I've included GML with Script and LaTeX with TeX.

I've also added a tag asking for an explanation of control code and tag; as far as I can tell, the labeling is arbitrary. Markup such as .p, <p> and \usepackage certainly appear to be of the same character. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add "open format?" column

Some languages listed in the table include an "Open format?" section in their template. This would be a useful comparison to add to the table. Aaronshenhao (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the column and some entries in "characteristics" table Aaronshenhao (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more useful if the article defined open format. Does that mean a format that is unencumbered by alleged intellectual property rights? Does it mean a format that has been standardized? E, none of the above? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Markedly Structured Text (MyST)

If nobody opposes the idea, in a few days I will include Markedly Structured Text (MyST) to this list. It's a superset of CommonMark Markdown created in 2022. Akira - Cleber Akira Nakandakare (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Akira - Cleber Akira Nakandakare (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]