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

Sdecl in XML and SGML+TC N1929

From: Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 16:29:47 -0700
Message-Id: <199706222329.QAA28286@bolt.sonic.net>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org

Rick Jelliffe writes:
| Yes!  The WebSGML TC has a parameter called "Application Requirements", with the keyword "SEEALSO" followed by identifiers.   It
| allows an SGML document to be decorated with locations of human-readership documentation about the semantics of the document, and
| indeed, about any syntactical or semantic conventions used in the document in addition to SGML.
| You can see this described in the draft WebSGML TC at
|     http://www.ornl.gov/sgml/wg8/document/1929.htm
| under  "Application Requirements".  Everyone on this WG should at least glance through it, I think.
| SEEALSO allows you, for example, to document that in your element types declarations, there is a fixed link attribute giving the
| location for documentation of the semantics of the element. (I.e. a dreaded Architectural Form).
| <!ATTLIST elementX
|   memymomemu CDATA #FIXED "http://www.me.com/dtd-doco.xml#elementX" >
| These additional requirements are different from conventional comments, in that they are simple identifiers, which an application
| can use to switch in any extra validity checks the vendor has cared to implement.

I don't see that SEEALSO in n1929 implies the used of fixed atts.  However,
Annex K says there is an example of SEEALSO in Annex L which is missing, and 
Annex L ends at a point that could be short of the full text ("except when
validating^M").  Would someone check to see whether the file is short?

Anyway, I'm writing about something different.  N1929 defines ways to
state in the SGML decl various stuff relevant to XML, and in Annex L
says that "XML requires a specific SGML declaration" and that "Explicit
SGML declaration not permitted [in XML]".  The latter is correct per
XML-lang of 31 March; the former is correct when parsing XML as SGML,
but not when parsing XML as XML.  

Under this new TC, how do the results differ, if at all, between
	1) parsing XML as SGML using an SGML-SGML-declaration-for XML
	   with the XML toggles switched on, and a conforming SGML
	   parser, and

	2) p[mumble]sing XML as XML (necessarily without an SGML declaration)
	   using a conforming validating XML processor (the rules for which 
	   are presumably unaffected by anything in this TC relating to the
	   SGML declaration)? 


  Terry Allen    Electronic Publishing Consultant    tallen[at]sonic.net
    Davenport and DocBook:  http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
          T.A. at Passage Systems:  terry.allen[at]passage.com 
Received on Sunday, 22 June 1997 19:29:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:27 UTC