[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: more on equivalences and round-trip integrity



> III Asynchronous entities
> 
> I think I've heard it proposed that all elements begin and end in the
> same entity, rather than allowing entities the freedom they currently
> have to be asynchronous.  [...]

> I believe Author/Editor users won't have a
> problem either, since I think A/E enforces this rule already.  I don't
> know about other editors.  Perhaps the vendors will say a word?

There are two cases for Author/Editor... editing and validating.  For
editing, A/E requires marked sections and entities to be synchronous:
a MS must begin and end in the same directly-containing element.
A/E does not support file entities for editing at all, so the entire
document must be in a single entity.  For editing, A/E does not support
entities containing markup, whether or not they are synchronous.

For validating, markup contained within entities is checked, and an MS can
probably end in a context different to that in which it began.  I don't
believe file entities are supported, though.  I'll leave it as an exercise to
work out how to get a document with a marked section positioned so as to let
you test this :-)  (hint: use open, not import)

We have no customers (of course) who use asynchronous entities or MSs.
I've once encountered someone who put a number of `beginnings' in
an entity to save typing, e.g.
	<!Entity t "<CHAPTER><TITLE>">
	<!Entity t2 "</TITLE><P>">
	. . .
	&t;this is a title&t2;document start
although I thing this probably counts as an `obfuscatory' use :-), and
the individual expressed a willingness to conform if tools became available
to him so he didn't use windows NOTEPAD (or whatever) any more.

I'd certainly vote for requiring synchronous things in general.

Lee