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


From: Deborah A. Lapeyre <dlapeyre@mulberrytech.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 08:22:39 -0800 (PST)
To: Murray Altheim <murray@spyglass.com>
cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9611260800.A28543-0100000@netcom>

I heard James and I canot refute what he says.  But I am one of the 
voices asking loudly for FPIs.  I don't ask that anything be done with 
their little insides (semantically, syntactically, or anything else you 
can think of).  I would be content if they could be viewed as
one long silly-looking string that we use in a character for character 

I would not find that match hard to do.  Therefore I'm assuming that 
it must be the catalog part that is difficult.  Is it the SGML Open 
catalog that is the problem?  That catalog was intended to be
interchageable and complete (well...), not simple.  Would a 
simplification of it help?

And (for those of us whose dragon-book years are very long ago and far 
away)  what is the difficult part?

--Debbie Lapeyre

Deborah A. Lapeyre                   Phone: 301-231-6933
Mulberry Technologies, Inc.          Fax:   301-231-6935
6010 Executive Blvd.  Suite 608      E-mail: dlapeyre@mulberrytech.com
Rockville, MD USA 20852
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 1996 11:22:56 UTC

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