Re: Transclusion

At 12:47 AM 10/30/96 GMT, Charles F. Goldfarb wrote:
>I don't see any problem with this, as long as the external SGML text entity
>doesn't change the parsing state. As David pointed out, the standard doesn't
>address timing, just context. The external SGML text entity would have to be
>parsed as though it occurred as a replacement for the entity reference. The
>following the entity reference has to be parsed as if it followed the
>replacement text. The challenge will be to define (and enforce?) the
>restrictions on a non-state-changing external entity.

Exactly right. The good news is that there is a convenient source for that
information: this information is exactly what the SGML Open fragment
specification (TR9601) provides. It gives a plain-text way to encode the
parsing context of a synchronous fragment, designed precisely so that the
referenced entity's replacement text can indeed "be parsed as though it
occurred as a replacement for the entity reference". 

Likewise, the restrictions we have already imposed in XML (on #CURRENT,
OMITTAG, USEMAP, and so on) let us avoid residual effects ways the
referenced entity to leave on the parsing context of the referencing entity.
The only case I can think of that might not be fully covered is RE handling
state, but our new rule on that almost certainly makes the differenc, if
there is any, moot.

Oh, I should note that for this purpose one must distinguish parsing context
per se, from validation context: although one can parse correctly, one
cannot in this case validate that IDs are unique. Obviously that would
require sending a complete list of the IDs in every directly or indirectly
referened entity, which would be a pretty high cost to gain the ability for
every recipient to validate what was sent, which should have been validated
by the sender ahead of time anyway.