- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 18:19:15 -0500
- To: Martin Cottreau <martinc@andyne.com>, "'w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org'" <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
EAt 09:29 AM 11/29/96 -0500, Martin Cottreau wrote: >I disagree. FPI do not qualify as "a simple set of practices". >Design goal number 4 for XML is "It shall be easy to write programs which >process XML documents." (according to the SGML '96 proceedings). FPI > violate that goal as well, as anyone who has pored through SP's code knows. SP's FPI handling is explicitly *not* required by the SGML standard. James Clark's users needed the FPI facility that the SGML standard *allows* and James Clark implemented it. Other conforming SGML systems may have a different FPI resolution mechanism or none at all. At least SGML users and vendors have the choice, which they have overwhelmingly taken advantage of. We should give XML users the same choice (especially since so many of them will be SGML users who already depend on their FPI based systems). Paul Prescod
Received on Friday, 29 November 1996 18:17:46 UTC