Re: Status of Character Entities Without DTDs?

At 16:12 2003 07 16 -0400, Joseph Reagle wrote:

>As part of the "RDF in HTML" taskforce, I've been trying to understand if 
>there are any existing commitments towards delivering entity like 
>functionality without reliance upon DTDs. My conclusion from [1] is:
>
>       Consequently, it appears the Schema WG has a pending action to
>       satisfy the HTML WG, and the Core WG has a pending requirement for
>       XHTML 2.0. Absent the explicit designation of resources to
>       furtherer this issue, I simply expect many formats (e.g., HTML,
>       MathML) will continue to rely upon DTDs.
>
>Consequently, could the XML CG provide me any guidance/expectations for 
>dates associated with:
>1. an XML 2.0 that satisfies this requirement, or

I am aware of no currently open task on the XML Core WG's
task list associated with XML 2.0.  There are therefore
no associated dates.

I am unclear on what is the referent for the statement
"the Core WG has a pending requirement for XHTML 2.0" in [1].

paul 

>2. of any plans to work on an element set for common character entities 
>(from the Schema WG or otherwise).
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html
>    1. Possible ACTION XML Core or XML Schema WG: develop a specification
>       (of XML or XML Schema) that specifies a feature akin to character
>       entities without DTDs. This would permit the HTML WG to move
>       towards relying upon alternative schema languages (e.g., XML
>       Schema and RelaxNG) that would then be more permissive with
>       respect to including foreign XML (including embedded RDF 1.0
>       serializations).
>       The following history was investigated to determine if any
>       existing commitments are pending (most links are to Member only
>       resources):
>          + In May 2000 Steven Pemberton (for HTML WG) [36]asked the
>            Schema WG to "include a facility to define at least character
>            entities."
>          + In October 2000 Don Mullen (for XML Schema WG) [37]declined
>            and suggested two work-arounds "specify entities in an
>            entity-only DTD" or "use markup such as <eacute/> instead of
>            &eacute;" and that the WG greed by "majority vote to instruct
>            the chairs to take this issue to the XML CG for consideration
>            as a possible candidate requirement for XML 2.0."
>          + In October 2000 Steven Pemberton (for HTML WG) objected "The
>            HTML working group has instructed me to forward their dissent
>            from your WG's decision, and to ask you to send the issue for
>            review by the director. The group is unhappy with the idea
>            that a user agent would have to be able to process schemas as
>            well as DTD fragments, when an aim of schemas was to replace
>            DTDs."
>          + In October 2000 the [38]Director Review meeting "RESOLVED:
>            Uphold the decision that this problem need not be solved in
>            XML Schema part 1/2. However, XML Schema WG must ensure that
>            this issue is resolved. It may be solved in a future version
>            of XML Schema spec, in a separate spec, or by another WG (or
>            by persuading the world that it's not really a problem that
>            needs solving). [MSM laughs humorlessly.]" However, no
>            progress has been made.
>          + In June 2002 Steven Pemberton (for HTML WG) noted these
>            difficulties again and a [39]request was forwarded to the
>            Core WG.
>          + In October 2002, the XML Core WG declared [40]that the
>            existing methods of DTD reliance are sufficient.
>          + In October 2002, the HTML WG was [41]confounded.
>       Consequently, it appears the Schema WG has a pending action to
>       satisfy the HTML WG, and the Core WG has a pending requirement for
>       XHTML 2.0. Absent the explicit designation of resources to
>       investigate this issue, I simply expect many formats (e.g., HTML,
>       MathML) will continue to rely upon DTDs.

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:34:33 UTC