Re: OMITTAG specifications in element declarations

 This note starts with one point, and records my reasoning as I abandoned
the point again. (Maybe it's not rhetorically sensible, but that's the way
it happened, so

   I've been thinking about this some more, and watching the discussion,
and I think that we maybe should allow the minimization flags, _if_ we
explicitly label them as an SGML compatibility feature. This explicit
labelling may be a hopbby horse of mine, but I think it is something  we
must do for the negative requirements we are already making (like
disallowing -- in comments). Not being honest about these feature would be
a terrible mistake.

   Of course, adding something to the grammar that is not already there is
more intrusive than removing something that _could_ be there. No XML
document will be invalid when parsed with a parser that fails to implement
the comment restriction, but an XML document that puts - - in its element
declarations would be invalid to a parser that skipped implementing
SGML-compatibility features. It's a much stronger requirement on processors
to add something to the language for compatibility, than to remove it for
the same reason -- even people who don't care about compatibility have to
implement added-features they don't need, whereas not implementing
restrictions you don't care about is easier and safer.

   I guess we're back to eliminating them. I'm not sure it's worth adding
syntax, especially given the number of changes that many DTDs will have to
undergo, anyway.

   -- 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                    \__________________________