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

Re: Re PEs

From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:40:44 -0500
Message-ID: <339F61AC.368A@hiwaay.net>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Matthew Fuchs wrote:

> The first kind of DTD is mostly server-side for generating documents.  It would
> only be transmitted to the client on request.  It is not required to conform to
> the MGSW (maybe we should say WF in a week, Valid in a fortnight) and can
> include all the bells and whistles a DTD designer needs while remaining in the
> WF category (i.e, no SHORTREFs).  Since we're keeping the XML lexing model
> simple, this would still be a lot easier than a full SGML DTD parser.

Top marks!  Good Matthew.  One view is that 
we deal with documents for which validity is established once and 
is always true.  Another are that we see an instance in process and
realize 
that the emitters and consumers of that instance are modifying it and 
that they transform by a set of rules err,,, styles..err.. processes.

That I guess, is why the spec calls them XML processors.  "-)

WFness and validity are just states of the instance.  It can be 
both and not.  It depends on what the processor needs it to be.

Some stupid questions:

What are the implications of transforms to namespaces?
Does the instance have a namespace?  
If an instance is transformed, is it a new namespace, is it 
in a new namespace, does the transform affect the namespace?

Looking at Rick's proposal to chain the notations, does 
that chain a set of documents which prescribe the notation, 
or the handlers required on the system to process the 
notation?  Yes, they are just identifiers.  What do they identify?

len
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 1997 22:41:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:40 EDT