Re: revised restatement of the RE rules
Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
> Here is my restatement of the RE rules, as revised after consultation
> with Charles Goldfarb, James Clark, sgmls, and nsgmls. It must be
> admitted that these four sources did not agree on all points as regards
> the proper treatment and interpretation of the extended examples at the
> end of the discussion. In view of our agreed need for explicit, well
> documented, and well understood rules for RE handling, the diversity of
> views seemed to me suggestive of a need for simplification, both in XML
> and in the revision of 8879.
I might choose somewhat stronger language but I agree with the sentiment.
Since we're having such difficulty with RS/RE, I propose declaring that they do
not exist. If XML doesn't specify records, then there are no special rules to
deal with their starting and ending points - end of problem. RS and RE are
anachronisms and are not necessary to specify a markup language.
What are the errors/problems with this approach? I recognize that 8879
compatibility may be lost but what else is wrong? I'm looking for substantive
technical issues with David Durand's "one record proposal".