ERB decisions, 24 October 1996

The ERB met today, 24 October 1996, and decided a number of
questions.  Present:  Bosak, Clark, Kimber, Magliery, Maler, Paoli,
Sharpe, Sperberg-McQueen; absent:  Bray (represented in part by proxy
votes), DeRose, Hollander.  Decisions were taken by consensus except
as noted.


As usual, summaries of the rationale for the decisions made have not
been reviewed by the ERB and are thus subject to correction and
further explanation.


A.15' XML will use a sort of 'formal processing instruction':  the
first token of the PI's system data will be a Name (e.g. <?TeX
\vskip> or <?application-name application-specific instructions>)
(7.6, 8)

Should the Name be required to be the name of a declared NOTATION?

Agreed unanimously that the Name need not be that of a declared
NOTATION; if it is, however, the spec should state that the meaning
is that the PI in question is in the notation (or: appertains to the
notation processor) indicated.

Rationale:  making the association explicit is a useful semantic
clue, but requiring it is excessively burdensome.


A.18' Should XML have declarations for notations (11.1)?

Agreed unanimously that it should.  Rationale:  needed for NDATA
entities (and PIs).


B.12 Should XML retain SGML's prohibition on multiple declarations
for the same notation (11.4)?

Agreed unanimously to retain the prohibition.  Rationale:
compatibility.


B.13 Should XML remove SGML's prohibition on ENTITY attributes for
notations (11.4.1)?

Agreed unanimously to retain the prohibition.  Rationale:
compatibility.


B.13 bis. Should XML allow any attributes at all for notations
(11.4.1)?

Agreed (EK dissenting) to drop attributes on notations in XML 1.0.
Agreed (MSM and EM dissenting) to place this topic on the list of
topics to be (re-)considered in the preparation of future revisions
of XML.


C.13 Should XML remove SGML's prohibition on multiple ID or NOTATION
attributes on the same element (11.3.3)?

Agreed unanimously to retain the prohibition.  Rationale:
compatibility.


C.15 Should XML define new specific methods of inferring values for
attributes with no attribute-value specifications (11.3.4)?  E.g.
INHERITED, to signify that the value is taken from the attribute of
the same name (and type) on the smallest enclosing element with such
an attribute.

Agreed (MSM dissenting) to define neither INHERITED nor any other new
method of value-inference.  Rationale:  this topic will be treated in
the second stage of the project.


Several other topics were discussed without achieving consensus.  The
ERB will meet again Saturday to continue these discussions.

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen

Received on Thursday, 24 October 1996 14:21:06 UTC