- From: Charles F. Goldfarb <Charles@SGMLsource.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:49:01 GMT
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 08 Oct 1996 10:40:56 -0700, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: >My feelings on this have been going back and forth like a ping-pong ball. > >If we take the actual constellation of *usage* of SDATA & CDATA internal entities, > I don't see why we need them in XML. Charles says that the way they are used is not exactly congruent with the way they were designed, but nonetheless I don't see that >the value they add makes up for the extra complexity in specification. Actually, Tim, I was supporting your position. The keyword SDATA in the ISO character entity set is unnecessary because the replacement text is a symbolic string. (My original intention was that a system would use an equivalent entity set in which the replacement text was real system data.) -- Charles F. Goldfarb * Information Management Consulting * +1(408)867-5553 13075 Paramount Drive * Saratoga CA 95070 * USA International Standards Editor * ISO 8879 SGML * ISO/IEC 10744 HyTime Prentice-Hall Series Editor * CFG Series on Open Information Management --
Received on Thursday, 10 October 1996 00:49:02 UTC