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

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

>> 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