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

Re: RS/RE: basic questions



I want to be careful to make sure that we aren't mixing up proposals. I was
not proposing that we treat the document as a single record. I was proposing
that we restrict all of the confusing RS/RE cases in mixed content so that
XML is SGML compatible, but not as confusing.

At 10:52 AM 9/23/96 -0700, Joe English wrote:
>There's one more rule (which is the important one):
>
>  * disallow separator characters in element content

I don't see how that is required. As far as I know, the SGML separator
character rules are not complicated in element content and would not have to
be changed.

>This is because things like:
>
>	<a>
>	<b>blah</b>
>	<b>blah</b>
>	</a>
>
>have different meanings depending on whether A has mixed content or
>element content.  The record-end after the first </b> end-tag is
>significant in the former case, and is ignored in the latter.
>
>If A has element content, the above would have to be written like:
>
>	<a><b>blah</b><b>blah</b></a>
>
>or
>
>	<a
>	><b>blah</b
>	><b>blah</b
>	></a>
>
>instead.

As long as all of our restrictions are on mixed content, which is where the
problem is, then I don't wee why we would need any restrictions on element
content. If I'm wrong on that, then this proposal is completely unworkable.
People need to be able to organize their element content with whitespace.

 Paul Prescod


Follow-Ups: