- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 00:15:45 -0400
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 1:36 PM 10/4/96, Paul Prescod wrote: >At 06:20 PM 10/3/96 CDT, you wrote: >>On 9 October 1996, the ERB will vote to decide the following question. >>A non-binding preliminary vote indicates the ERB is now leaning to Yes. >> >>A.2 All or virtually all the information provided by a normal SGML >>declaration will be fixed for all documents; no SGML declaration will be >>necessary. (Possible exception: character-set information may vary >>document to document, but will be conveyed in other ways.) (6.2.3) > >Chould we reserve a place in the syntax for referring to one in the future >so that we can gracefully introduce some form of SGML declaration if we want >to in the future? For instance, perhaps if we make some wrong decision here, >we will need to make a future version and differentiate them in the SGML >declaration. > > Paul Prescod We already have one, A new tag in DSD, should we choose that route. Another random keyword follwing <! delimiters of we stick with the Standard syntax. Given the current _lack_ of agreement in parsing practice with declarations (except when declared in a CATALOG), we need not worry about SGML compatibility here. -- David RE delenda est. _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________ http://www.dynamicdiagrams.com/services_map_main.html
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 1996 00:11:35 UTC