>I *think* the connection is a bit closer than that--though perhaps a better comparison is to XSL...but I'm sure as heck just trying to digest the golf cart polo from last week, so I can't tell you why I think that! :)

Probably because almost everyone thinks like this. :) Besides, it's HTML and XML. :) But the comparison is quite appropriate.

An HTML file tells only how "something" will/should look on the screen/paper/etc. It's pure layout description. It tells nothing about the meaning of that "something". XML tells nothing about how "something" will/should look. But it gives the meaning of the "something".

So, any tool that can show XML in HTML format, it's only a viewing tool. It's like the old browse in FoxPro. It can put on the screen any dbf. But that doesn't mean there's any relation between the dbf format and VGA (or any other screen type). And the same dbf can be shown in a huge variety of ways. The same goes for XML. It can be "converted" to HTML in a infinite number of ways. Its meaning remains the same, only the view changes.

Vlad