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

Re: (Repeat) Decision: C.4 (Predefined entities)

From: <lee@sq.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 96 14:22:04 EST
Message-Id: <9611101922.AA08200@sqrex.sq.com>
To: paul@arbortext.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Paul wrote:

> here are by far the 4 most used entity refs in your average Adept text
> document (not counting &lt; and &amp;)
I think this is useful.

> 	&ldquo;, &rdquo; (left double quote and right double quote)
> 	&mdash;, &ndash;

None of these are in Latin 1 or the Adobe Symbol font (you can't substitute
the dash from Symbol for a GillSans-UltraBold dash anyway, of course).
But they are available on all major platforms, whth more or less effort
from developers.

But I agree that it would be good to include them.

Please don't specify the replacement text in the XML spec, though, but
only the UNICODE character and/or the intended glyph.  For example, I
might want double quotes to come out 4 points larger than usual --
not uncommon in magazine or newspaper publishing -- and I won't be able
to do that in XML by altering the "standard, fixed" entities.

I can do it using new entities that themselves include the
old ones, of course:
    <!Entity open-quote "<BIG>&ldquo;</BIG>">
in systems that are sufficiently smart.

I don't understand the point of being so careful about prefixing
all XML names with -XML- earlier, and now suddenly deciding to add
several screens' worth of fixed keywords that are not so prefixed.
I sense a severe case of Rapidly Encroaching Deployment Elegant Architecture
Reduction Syndrome -- RED EARS :-)

Lee
Received on Sunday, 10 November 1996 14:23:21 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:42 EDT