[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ERB decisions on A.17, B.9, and other questions



At 18:44 19/10/96 EDT, lee@sq.com wrote:
>> In the light of these agreements, the ERB reconfirmed its earlier
>> decision that XML 1.0 will not have SDATA entities.  It is thought that
>> most uses of SDATA entities are adequately served by character
>> references to Unicode characters (see example below).  Techniques for
>> dealing with non-Unicode characters, specification of glyphs rather than
>> characters, and related topics (such as possible mechanisms for document
>> private agreements governing the ISO 10646 Private Use Areas) will be
>> addressed in future revisions.
>
>Sorry to quote all that...
>
>If I want to put my transcription of bits of Bailey's 18th C. dictionary
>on the web (actually it's already there in fairly grotty SGML), I will
>want to refer to some glyphs not in unicode.

Let me reiterate: XML 1.0 is not addressing this problem.  A future version
of XML will address this problem.
We haven't decided whether or not internal SDATA entities will be part of
the solution.

>Would I do
>    <!Entity tall-s "s">
>and hope that a style sheet could map this to (say) the font
>Adobe Caslon Alternates, using an embedded OpenType font?

Typically, use of internal text entities wouldn't be apparent in the grove
that style sheet works off.

If I had to do this, I would use somthing like

<!ENTITY tail-s
 '<rendition glyph-id="your favourite style of glyph-id">s</rendition>'
>

if it's appropriate to regard the tail-s as an alternative presentation form
of the letter s.  If it's better  to think of it as just a glyph, I might
use something like

<!ENTITY tail-s
 '<glyph id="your glyph id"></glyph-id>'
>

In either case I would also have a DSSSL style-sheet to specify the
appropriate presentation of the element.  

James