W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > October 1996

Re: A17: keep or drop entities?

From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 10:32:03 -0500
Message-ID: <32592273.7046@HiWAAY.net>
To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
CC: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
James Clark wrote:

[Snipped:  agree] 
> The only extra information that using external data entities provides is the
> notation, but this  is marginally useful in an HTTP world where that
> information is in the MIME header.  Information in data attributes can just
> as well be put as extra attributes on the element that includes the URL
> attribute value.

Inquiry:  when we lose the notation here, we are not restricting its 
use in a DTD where the notation has more value.  MIME typing via a 
mailcap is essentially the notation declarations in a separate file.
I believe an SGML notation can say more about the type.

1.  It is both convenient and formal to have these as part of the 
Document Type to ensure that the formal requirements for the type 
are noted.

2.  The HTTP world may be expanded to include other protocols 
(e.g. stateful).

I inquire only to ensure we keep the valuable piece:  a completely 
specified interface.   In all other respects vis a vis entities, 
I agree with James.  External entities look "weird" to current 
hypertext/hypermedia practicioners.  However, we will have to come 
back and establish the means for indirect hyperlink locations as the
notion of 
independent linking is too valuable to lose, IMO.

Len Bullard
Lockheed Martin
Received on Monday, 7 October 1996 11:23:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:04 UTC