- From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 16:28:28 -0500
- To: lee@sq.com
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
>Yes, but which recommendations? Sorry to be obtuse. I don't see how >the W3C can usefully make general recommendtions about entity sets in >all languages -- they're not available in C, for example! I'm not trying >to be awkward. It is really not clear to me that a recommendation that >the W3C makes about HTML (presumably) should automatically apply to XML. I'm still trying to catch up on my email, so I may be commenting out of line. It seems to me that having a predefined set of *required* entities (other than those needed for escaping markup) is a BAD idea. I have no problem with a *recommended* set of entites, or even a *required* set that all XML systems must understand. I cannot see why these need to be intriduced that the syntactical level. Also, with HTML compatability: I have no problem with recommended behaviour for HTML documents, but again, including it at the syntactical level is a bit ugly, to say the least. (Now I'll go off an get caught up, red the spec, and turn bright red after I find this has all be resolved...)
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 1996 16:30:10 UTC