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

Last try

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 10:19:12 GMT
Message-Id: <23356.9611151019@grogan.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
To: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
I take it silence indicates agreement, that it IS too late to change
anything, but being an ornery type, I'll try one last time:

Will someone on the ERB stand up and be counted by explaining
why an unprincipled hack (enumerating 11 grandfathered empty tags
without amending the definitions of well-formedness and validity) is
preferable to a principled hack (allowing  <?XML empty names ... ?>
and defining its impact on well-formedness and validity, as in version
0.1)?

Will someone on the ERB stand up and be counted by explaining
why the built-in entity names are not overridable?

(I don't care about this one personally, but I think the others who do
deserve an answer) Will someone on the ERB stand up and be counted by
explaining why being a proper SGML subset is being prevented by the
enumerated attribute value change?

I do not doubt that, as Eliot pointed out, you all took your
responsibilities seriously, voted on the basis of your understanding,
and after due consideration took the decisions you have on all three
of these cases.  What I think the rest of us deserve, and you ought to
WANT to provide, for ongoing PR reasons if nothing else, is an
EXPLANATION of why you collectively disagreed with the apparent
(substantial, in some cases) majority view of the rest of the WG
members.  All three of these issues are going to provoke questions
next week -- you better get your story straight on them.  What better
place to do so than this list?  Come on, guys -- we'd like to be
behind you, but that's hard when we don't know where you stand!

ht
Received on Friday, 15 November 1996 05:19:08 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:43 EDT