Reviewing sgml-lib

I've taken a first look at this, by going through sgml.soc and xml.soc
and checking for consistency and omissions.  Next stage is to re-generate
everything from original sources and diff it to what we have.

Question: what's the rationale for the directory naming here?
e.g. "REC-html401-19991224" rather than "html401" or just "html" ?
This is surely a working SGML catalogue, not a historical record!



HTML 3.0 is missing - is that intentional?
"-//IETF//DTD HTML 3.0//EN"

Missing declaration:
"-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin1//EN//HTML"
This one is referenced in both HTML40 and HTML401, so missing it
looks rather serious.  It exists under other aliases, but this is
how it's referenced in the DTDs.


"ISO 8879-1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN//HTML"
"ISO 8879-1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN"
are in directory IETF, not ISO.  Is that intentional?

(I have no comparison there - valet puts them all in directory html)

The following aliases for HTML 2 DTD exist in Valet but not W3C.
Are they all considered dead?

"-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 1//EN"
"-//IETF//DTD HTML Strict Level 1//EN"
"-//IETF//DTD HTML Strict//EN"
"-//IETF//DTD HTML i18n//EN"

"-//W3C//ENTITIES Full Latin 1//EN//HTML"
"-//W3C//ENTITIES Symbolic//EN//HTML"
are commented as under ISO-HTML


Hmmm, we have (only) flat versions of XHTML11, XHTML Basic, SVG11 and
MathML20.  Is this really sufficient, or should I propose the modular
versions of those four?

We're also missing
"-//W3C//DTD XHTML Architecture 1.1//EN"


There are three directories not referenced anywhere (duplicates):

There is also one missing directory referenced in xml.soc

Nick Kew

Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 17:54:03 UTC