- From: Robert Streich <streich@slb.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 03:04:23 -0500
- To: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU>
- Cc: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
At 11:30 AM 10/7/96 CDT, Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote: >On Sun, 6 Oct 1996 19:37:40 -0400 Paul Grosso said: >>I see no reason for TEMP, and extremely little for RCDATA. If we decide > >Little, but not nil. I've needed RCDATA when my SGML examples are trying >to illustrate the syntax of marked sections: since CDATA marked >sections can't have nested marked sections within them, one needs >something like I agree. If you're going to have one then why not both. If you are going to do away with CDATA/RCDATA elements, then you have to have CDATA/RCDATA marked sections. I still prefer the element variety since they are much easier for people to use and I'd prefer to not even have to address marked sections at all. Don't use 'em now (in instances), don't want to in the future. Just don't want to have people sticking in CDATA/RCDATA everywhere they feel like. I can control this with elements, not with marked sections. Since I'm beginning to see XML as a down-translation more and more, however, I find I'm less interested in arguing this point. TEMP should go away. bob Robert Streich streich@slb.com Schlumberger voice: 1 512 331 3318 Austin Research fax: 1 512 331 3760
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 1996 04:12:21 UTC