Re: revised restatement of the RE rules

Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote:

> Here is my restatement of the RE rules, as revised after consultation
> with Charles Goldfarb, James Clark, sgmls, and nsgmls.  It must be
> admitted that these four sources did not agree on all points as regards
> the proper treatment and interpretation of the extended examples at the
> end of the discussion.  In view of our agreed need for explicit, well
> documented, and well understood rules for RE handling, the diversity of
> views seemed to me suggestive of a need for simplification, both in XML
> and in the revision of 8879.

I might choose somewhat stronger language but I agree with the sentiment.

Since we're having such difficulty with RS/RE, I propose declaring that they do 
not exist. If XML doesn't specify records, then there are no special rules to 
deal with their starting and ending points - end of problem. RS and RE are 
anachronisms and are not necessary to specify a markup language.

What are the errors/problems with this approach? I recognize that 8879 
compatibility may be lost but what else is wrong? I'm looking for substantive 
technical issues with David Durand's "one record proposal".

Bill

Received on Tuesday, 24 September 1996 21:58:08 UTC