Re: SGML declaration for XML
> From: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> At 05:49 PM 11/8/96 CST, Paul Grosso wrote:
> >Is there anything else that needs to be done to your standard SGML
> >declaration for a Basic document other than
> > DELIM GENERAL SGMLREF PIC "?>"
> > NAMECASE GENERAL NO
> Huh? I think we finally decided to case-fold, so you mean YES.
I'm quite glad, then, since case sensitivity was problematic for me.
Sorry, I must have missed that decision. In that case, we can just
go with NAMECASE as in the SGML decl for Basic SGML docs.
> But somebody who really knows this stuff does need to synthesize
> an SGML declaration for XML. - Tim
Of course, 8879:1986 doesn't break down all the options/features
in such a way that one could give a precise (necessary and sufficient)
8879:1986 SGML decl for XML, but it would be useful to publish the
sufficient and closest-to-necessary-as-possible-given-8879:1986 SGML
declaration for XML.