- 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
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