Re: revised restatement of the RE rules

> From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
> I think that in this case, the point is that the ESIS will be 
> different, though it would be trivial to convert the one
> with extra newlines to the one without.

Is it important that the ESIS be the same?  If the ESIS is different,
then HyTime locations which are based on the ESIS representation
will be different for a true SGML parser, versus a XML parser.  I
worry about this.

Is there anything wrong with saying that _all_ REs are significant?
It might make documents harder for humans to read, but my
understanding what that that was not the point of XML.  It would be
very easy to understand. REs or something like them are necessary as
end-of-line markers, though the syntactic form that an end-of-line
takes should be as trivial as possible.

Quoting content does help, but doesn't necessarily make it any easier
to understand what the parser thinks (unless you have syntax
highlighting, or something else to help the reader match quotes).  Is
there any reason, other than human-readability, why mandating that all
REs are significant is bad?

What is so bad about 

<p>This is a <?CUE frame23>paragraph</P>

being different from

<p>This is a <?CUE frame23>

As I see it, there are 3 proposals on the floor:
 1) explicit REs, this included Charles' quoting
 2) _never_ ignore RE's
 3) no REs (subtly different from (2) where REs are treated as data content)

I worry about (3), but see little real difference between 1 & 2 except
the actual markup.


Derek Denny-Brown <derdb@techno.com> | Technical Staff @ TechnoTeacher, Inc.
  http://www.techno.com/~derdb/      |    work-phone: (716) 389-0963
      SGML/HyTime/DSSSL/WWW          |      http://www.techno.com/