Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation

At 8:20 PM +0000 2/20/97, Digitome Ltd. wrote:
>I aggree. But I *do* wish we could stop referring to SGML files as "legacy".
>Surely SGML->XML is a "down-translation" not an "up-translation".

Afraid not. You lose no information in going from SGML to XML, unless you
have somehow managed to come up with a way to use SHORTREF that could not
be equivalently expressed with tags. It is a cross-translation, since any
SGML DTD and any XML DTD should be able to operate at the same level of

   Actaully, there are a few exceptions: as far as I can tell, the only
place where we lose information with the current draft is in some rare
content model with mixed content, in SDATA, where a meaningful string must
be hand-translated to a numeric code, and separately documented, and
(hopefully not for long), with PUBLIC, where a location independent
perpetually valid identifier must be replaced with a method that depends on
a particular technical infrastructure for resolution.

As this is a follow on to the previous thread and SDATA was raised by
someone else, I will repeat my plea that we allow a way to use strings for
undefined characters instead of undefined code points. In the absence of a
resolution mechanism, they are equivalent, but SDATA has key advantages:
compatible with established SGML practice (CoST and SP for instance), and
potentially provide supereior information to a user. SDATA also extends
easily and obviously to implementation of a registration mechanism in the
future -- Private use characters do not.

I am not a number, I am an undefined character!

   -- 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                    \__________________________

Follow-Ups: References: