W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > November 1996

Re: ERB decision, 31 October 1996

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 09:51:18 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0b33.32.19961105095114.0077cecc@pop.intergate.bc.ca>
To: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
Sign me up as also not getting what Charles is driving at here.  When 
I use text entities, it has almost always been in support of authoring,
with a hub document along the lines of 

<spec>
...
<body>
&intro;
&documents;
&elements;
&entities;
...

With the entities so named typically being subject to constant revision;
so it would be surprising for the to document stay unchanged between two runs
of the parser; in fact, since the parser is mostly used for validation
and typesetting, you usually run it *because* you've been changing entities.  
I don't *think* this practice is exotic and weird... like Eve, I feel like
I'm missing something obvious.

In case it's not obvious, the ERB (and I think this group) do *not* think that
in general the SGML external text entity semantics are obviously correct for 
delivery of distributed network documents; the most recent change in the spec 
language was precisely to avoid making browsers deal with them.  But it's also 
not obvious that the semantics are not correct.
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 1996 12:51:47 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:41 EDT