Re: A2: SGML declaration?
At 1:36 PM 10/4/96, Paul Prescod wrote:
>At 06:20 PM 10/3/96 CDT, you wrote:
>>On 9 October 1996, the ERB will vote to decide the following question.
>>A non-binding preliminary vote indicates the ERB is now leaning to Yes.
>>A.2 All or virtually all the information provided by a normal SGML
>>declaration will be fixed for all documents; no SGML declaration will be
>>necessary. (Possible exception: character-set information may vary
>>document to document, but will be conveyed in other ways.) (6.2.3)
>Chould we reserve a place in the syntax for referring to one in the future
>so that we can gracefully introduce some form of SGML declaration if we want
>to in the future? For instance, perhaps if we make some wrong decision here,
>we will need to make a future version and differentiate them in the SGML
> Paul Prescod
We already have one, A new tag in DSD, should we choose that route.
Another random keyword follwing <! delimiters of we stick with the Standard
syntax. Given the current _lack_ of agreement in parsing practice with
declarations (except when declared in a CATALOG), we need not worry about
SGML compatibility here.
RE delenda est.
David Durand firstname.lastname@example.org \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________