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

At 6:36 PM 10/23/96, James Clark wrote:
>At 16:50 23/10/96 -0400, Gavin Nicol wrote:
>>As I said earlier, SDATA, or some form of entity typing mechanism,
>>seems to me to be crucial to building a good distributed
>>character/glyph/font registry/resolution mechnism. I wish to be
>>able to do something like:
>>    <!ENTITY foo SDATA "[unicode=XXX glyphid=XXXX charid=XXXX]" >
>>and to be able to resolve/process that on my local system.
>Why can't you build your mechanism using normal elements
> <!ENTITY foo '<glyph unicode="XXX" glyphid="XXXX" charid="XXXX"/>'>
>?  I don't find the argument that "my DTD may not have a glyph element" very
>convincing: most SGML DTDs are certainly going to need modifying to
>support XML.

   This will only be useful if we pre-wire a tag into XML. I'm not averse
to this, really, as I agree that existing DTDs will be reworked. However,
it is a new mechanism, and it adds a funky tag that can't be redefined (if
this were not so a processor without a DTD might get a redefined tag of the
name "glyph," and choke). People are already used to the syntax
&mystery-glyph; The use of that syntax would now be an option that they
have to brew up themselves after understanding a new tag.

   These are not fatal objections, but I still prefer SDATA to this. Also
defining the tag, would mean defining the attributes for character
meta-data. I don't think we should enter that den of snakes now. Let's
reserve the [] syntax in SDATA entities for the future, and finish solving
the problem in XML 1.1 or 2.0.

   -- David

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                    \__________________________