Re: RS/RE: basic questions

At 01:44 PM 10/2/96 -0400, David G. Durand"  (David G. Durand wrote:

>My argument against quoting is that SGML compatibility should not be _more_
>important than user utility (and familiarity is a significant component of
>utility for most busy people who aren't toolsmiths).

David has, I think, crisply defined the key to this issue.  Either XML is
completely compatible with SGML or it isn't.  A review of the ERB's stated
principles shows that SGML compatibility gets higher priority over ease of

Whether this priority is the correct one or whether it should apply in this
case is still open for debate, but I think it's clear, as James pointed out
what seems like years ago that the only real solution to the RE problem
that preserves SGML compatibility is to eliminate mixed content, which
means quoting data.  

I certainly agree that quoting data will make authoring *by hand* more
difficult (I hated it the first time I tried it), and we do have to be
sensitive to the marketing implications of requiring it, but I feel very
strongly that the cost of not having SGML compatibility in this case is
much greater than the cost of authoring.


W. Eliot Kimber (kimber@passage.com) 
Senior SGML Consultant and HyTime Specialist
Passage Systems, Inc., (512)339-1400
10596 N. Tantau Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014-3535 (408) 366-0300, (408)
366-0320 (fax)
2608 Pinewood Terrace, Austin, TX 78757 (512) 339-1400 (fone/fax)
http://www.passage.com (work) http://www.drmacro.com (home)
"If I never had existed, would you still remember me?..."
                                   --Austin Lounge Lizards, "1984 Blues"