Re: Semantics, Macros, and the Wolfram Proposal

Just a side note: in case anyone was wondering why i chose to
use a different notation for representing symbol characters
in MINSE (e.g. ?eacute? instead of é) -- i did consider
just using existing SGML entities and made a very conscious
decision not to.

Bruce Smith wrote:
> 
> Other forms of extensibility
>
> [...] perhaps even the
> set of extended character entity names that can be used (this is
> controversial, I assume, since author extensions to this would
> invalidate any HTML-Math DTD, which has to list a fixed finite set of
> entity names).

The above is exactly the reason why.  Symbols and their renderings
can be extensibly defined in MINSE, in much the same way as
compounds, and so no DTD could encompass them all.


Ping