W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > June 1997

Re: KISS (was: Parameter entity references in WF docs)

From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 23:47:19 -0500
Message-ID: <339644D7.29DA@hiwaay.net>
To: lee@sq.com
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
lee@sq.com wrote:
> 
> Dan:
> > I think they should be modelled not as syntactic, token
> > pasting thingies, but as typed language elements.
> 
> Len:
> > I agree.  That direction would give them a utility beyond
> > string substitutions.  This would be a worthy work item.
> >
> > Does everyone think it is needed for XML 1.0?
> No.  I'm concerned that
> (1) this is a fairly fundamental change to the SGML model of delimiter-based
>     textual mode-specific substitution;

Yes.  Without doubt.

> (2) such a fundamental change may have far-reaching consquences;

Yes. Most of them good, I think.  Most of them premature perhaps.

> (3) It's nearly July.

Yes, but that's the editor's problem. :-)  I'm the one 
who wants them left out for now.
 
> Expressivity of a markup language is derived from its neutrality with respect
> to data types: in this sense, its lack of typing may actually be a virtue.
> I am not sure.

I can't say much about the virtue of it.  I can say that when a tool 
can't do the job, others succeed it.  We have to be sure what 
we need to do with a tool before we make it, or we have to take 
a tool we've made and modify it to do what we need. 
 
> Leave parameter entities there as macro string substitution.
> It's well understood, and can be implemented easily.

Then document it in those terms.  Make it clear that any 
typing implied by PEs is understood to be outside the 
current spec.
 
> Make the spec clearer where it needs to be.
> 
> Call it 1.0 and let's move on.

Fine.  The ERB decides.
 
> ...epimorphistic disclusion 

Wow.  What does that mean?

len
Received on Thursday, 5 June 1997 00:47:41 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:39 EDT