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

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

From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 16:28:28 -0500
Message-Id: <199611122128.QAA00756@nathaniel.ebt>
To: lee@sq.com
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
>Yes, but which recommendations?  Sorry to be obtuse.  I don't see how
>the W3C can usefully make general recommendtions about entity sets in
>all languages -- they're not available in C, for example!  I'm not trying
>to be awkward.  It is really not clear to me that a recommendation that
>the W3C makes about HTML (presumably) should automatically apply to XML.
I'm still trying to catch up on my email, so I may be commenting out
of line. It seems to me that having a predefined set of *required*
entities (other than those needed for escaping markup) is a BAD idea.

I have no problem with a *recommended* set of entites, or even a
*required* set that all XML systems must understand. I cannot see why
these need to be intriduced that the syntactical level.

Also, with HTML compatability: I have no problem with recommended
behaviour for HTML documents, but again, including it at the
syntactical level is a bit ugly, to say the least.

(Now I'll go off an get caught up, red the spec, and turn bright red
after I find this has all be resolved...)
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 1996 16:30:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:20 UTC