Re: Last word on LINKTYPE (ha, ha!)

I did say I'd said my last for the time being, but I have to clear up
an error I made (I think):

At 18:37 06.03.97 +0100, David Durand wrote:
>At 11:42 AM +0100 3/6/97, Steve Pepper wrote:
>>The separation between the DTD, the LPD
>>and the instance is so clear that I do not regard this as "mixing
>>processing and markup". (And in fact you don't even have to put the
>>LPD physically in the document if you use SP-based tools.)
>yes, funny that SP should have chosen to be non-conformant in that way.
>Wihtout asking I would suspect that James is bothered by the same thing I
>am, to the extent that he's willing to ignore the standard in his

I'm not sure this is the case after all. I may have been half-remembering
something else (that the "-A archname" option automatically activates any
LPD of the same name). But it would be a nice feature to have -- and calling
it "non-conformant" is a bit silly: All that would be happening would
be the on-the-fly creation of a virtual document. Nothing in the standard
that prohibits that.


Steve Pepper, SGML Architect, <pepper@falch.no>
Falch Infotek a.s, Postboks 130 Kalbakken, N-0902 Oslo, Norway
http://www.falch.no/  tel://+47 2290 2733  fax://+47 2290 2599
"Whirlwind Guide": http://www.falch.no/people/pepper/sgmltool/