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

Re: Parameter entity references in WF docs

From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 11:24:11 -0500
Message-ID: <339050AB.549B@hiwaay.net>
To: "Norbert H. MIKULA" <e_nmiku@utila.ifi.uni-klu.ac.at>
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Norbert H. MIKULA wrote:
>  
> Maybe it is a question if we want a "one size fits all" solution
> or having layers of complexity and conformance. Since we have
> a distinction between WF and valid, we have already layers, I believe.
> Thus we could use only the basics for WF and add more complexity
> for validty. For many (most) XML applications WF will probably be
> enough.
> However, I wouldn't like it if I have to move to (costly) SGML just
> because I want to keep my DTD reasonably maintainable (I am saying
> this because, I believe, somebody suggested dropping them at all).

I have.  

I do because under the murky requirements, no one can 
state a strong enough case for using them.  At some point, the 
*expense* of using SGML is trivial next to the cost of trying 
to maintain an unstable code and content set based on a quickly moving 
specification.  The content vs features cost curve is making 
the Web a very difficult place to invest as it remains a 
caveat emptor market.  This is a concern more serious than the 
maintenance of a few overly complex DTDs that themselves 
can be redesigned for a system without PEs.  IMO, this DTD 
maintenance issue is very much overrrated when compared 
to the insertion of the technology into the market. 

The bigger the pig, the bigger the barnyard gate has to be.
KISS until your lips bleed.  We don't have a market yet 
and we won't until we have demonstrably useful products.

> I personally would say, that we could rule that a parser that
> needs/wants to check for WF only, doesn't need to process PEReferences.
> It doesn't really need to process the DTD anyway.

Then we are not discussing the language design.  We are discussing 
the conformance testing for applications that handle a language.
The only way to do that sensibly is from the requirements 
perspective.  The line between XML as a subset and SGML as 
a superset are very very blurred now.

Len Bullard
Received on Saturday, 31 May 1997 12:24:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:26 UTC