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

At 6:00 PM 10/20/96, Charles F. Goldfarb wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Oct 1996 15:18:56 -0400 (EDT), John_Lavagnino@Brown.edu wrote:
>>The SDATA keyword, in very common practice, means "This is a name for
>>the character, a name that needs conversion for whatever output device
>>you've got at hand."  The prescribed effect (at least in the ESIS
>>world) is to mark that name as distinct from ordinary document
>>content.  You can certainly live without that distinction if you don't
>>mind unreliable hacks like saying "anything in square brackets is
>>really a character name".
>I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, John, but I would like to point out
>that "[name]" doesn't have to be a hack. We could have an XML notation,
>formally for all element types with data content, in which "[name]" was
>a character name. As long as the ESIS content is unchanged for all systems,
>there is no need for text to be declared to the parser as SDATA.

Yes, but adding yet another special delimiter with a unique new syntax
seems to be making things worse, and not better. Doing that introduces a
new limitation (as square brackets now need to be escaped, and a whole new
kind of error [undefined character code encountered].

  We're better off with a new (pre-reserved) tagname, or even better,
sticking with the tried and true SDATA solution. It's new to the HTML folx,
but familiar to SGMLers and their parsers.

   -- David

RE delenda est.
I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________