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

Re: ERB decisions on A.17, B.9, and other questions

From: Charles F. Goldfarb <Charles@SGMLsource.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 03:37:02 GMT
To: gtn@ebt.com (Gavin Nicol)
Cc: jjc@jclark.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <327d24ba.24828980@mail.alink.net>
On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 18:18:23 -0400, gtn@ebt.com (Gavin Nicol) wrote:

>>Why can't you build your mechanism using normal elements
>>
>><!ENTITY foo '<glyph unicode="XXX" glyphid="XXXX" charid="XXXX"/>'>
>>
>>?  I don't find the argument that "my DTD may not have a glyph element" very 
>>convincing: most SGML DTDs are certainly going to need modifying to
>>support XML.  
>
>You *could* do this, but it is semantically incorrect in my books. It
>is also a less interoperable solution (all systems would know that
>SDATA was something special, but not all would necessarily know that
><glyph> was to be replaced by characters). Also, the *requirement* of
>DTD changes/additional is not one to be ignored either.

I agree with Gavin: glyphs aren't elements.

A better approach would be to define a "GetGlyph" storage manager with unicode,
glyphid, and charid attributes:

<!ENTITY foo SYSTEM '<GetGlyph unicode="XXX" glyphid="XXXX" charid="XXXX">'>
--
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, 24 October 1996 23:36:57 UTC

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