- From: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 16:23:01 CDT
- To: Liam Quin <lee@sq.com>, W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 23 Oct 96 15:31:18 EDT Liam Quin said: >> For fallback processing, the text-entity user must rely on >> display-specific sets of entity declarations -- unfortunately, >> without public identifiers these cannot be reliably labeled. >If there were public identifiers for the unknown glyphs, they probably >wouldn't need to be unknown! Sorry to be unclear. The antecedent of 'these' was intended to be 'display-specific sets of entity declarations', not 'unkown glyphs'. That is, what I meant was "without formal public identifiers being part of XML, there will be no public text display version field in the external identifier for an entity set; it will thus be impossible (by which I meant: I don't know how) to select automatically the specific version of the entity set which should be used by a system with the display characteristics of the current application; since the public text display version field can be used to identify device-specific versions of entity sets and handle some sophisticated fallback schemes, this means that XML may have no standard way of handling fallback information via device-specific and generic entity sets." >> 3. A non-ISO-10646 character known to the application: >> >> In both cases, private arrangements of a form not covered by the XML >> spec are required. >Not if the XML spec handles this case. Possible forms of private arrangements are indeed on the list of topics to be addressed in future revisions. I don't think there are proposals on the table to address it in version 1.0. Sorry; my obscurity; I should have said XML 1.0. -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 1996 17:37:38 UTC