Re: 1.3, Notation: SGML? Reference Concrete?

At 11:09 AM 31/01/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>1.3.a Should we assume that saying links are expressed using SGML elements
>and attributes, and describing them in SGML terms, is a satisfactorily
>complete syntax spec, thus avoiding a requirement for any BNF?

Absolutely; it's more compact and the BNF would be big and hairy and
duplicate XML.

>1.3.b If links are SGML elements, should require XML-style reference
>concrete syntax + quoted attribute values?  I.e. assert that
>all links would fit into XML docs?

I want this to be usable with real SGML.  So I think we should *not*
restrict them to XML-style syntax, but insert a usage note saying it
won't work with XML unless you follow XML rules. - Tim