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

At 08:56 PM 3/6/97 +0100, 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.

With SP, you can concatenate files on the command line, which allows you to

nsgmls mydoctype.dtd mylpd.lpd  mydoc.sgm 

You can also have an external LPD subset, so you could do:


Obviously, any entity manager could be designed so that you could "slip in"
a LINKTYPE declaration without actually having in the document entity,
although this is, of course, a hack.


<Address HyTime=bibloc>
W. Eliot Kimber, Senior Consulting SGML Engineer
Highland Consulting, a division of ISOGEN International Corp.
2200 N. Lamar St., Suite 230, Dallas, TX 95202.  214.953.0004