- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 13:58:27 -0400
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 12:36 PM 10/2/96, Paul Prescod wrote: >At 11:09 AM 10/2/96 -0400, David G. Durand" (David G. Durand wrote: >> I just realized that we are seriously hosed if we endorse the use of >>shortrefs and some pseudo-element to implement an SGML-compatible a quoting >>syntax for XML. Say, we define a pseudo element <pe>, for the sake of >>argument. Now we need to document a restriction that no element may be >>called <pe>, or else we will generate a terribly wrong ESIS. > >That doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I can't create an element called >FULL_NAME either. =) (okay, okay, in the RCS) Yes, but how would feel about a compiler that said you can't use the variable name "i" because it's needed to keep FORTRAN compatibility. It's bad because it's an ad-hoc restriction with no internal justification in terms of the structure of XML. (We're not using the RCS for names anyway, if I understood the internationalization thread). I suppose we add some XML non-NAMECHAR to the SGML delcaration, and use that in the element name. Since that only makes the converted SGML ugly, I don't have a problem with it. >>We are also >>likely to make the process of creating content models extremely difficult, >>due to the name conflict, > >What's so difficult about avoiding a name conflict? explaining it so it doesn't sound like a hack. A task made harder, of course, because it is a hack. SGML has enough rules that say "something simple, BUT NOT some random special case". This is a classic design problem. For an SGML example, try to make a SHORTREF containing the character 'B' sometime. -- David RE delenda est. --------------------------------------------+-------------------------- David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu | david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science | Dynamic Diagrams http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ | http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 1996 13:54:34 UTC