[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

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
>>implementation.
>
>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
do:

nsgmls mydoctype.dtd mylpd.lpd  mydoc.sgm 

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

<!DOCTYPE Foo PUBLIC "...">
<!LINKTYPE XML-Stuff PUBLIC "...">
<foo>
 ...

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.

Cheers,

E.
--
<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
www.isogen.com
</Address>