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

Re: C.4 Undeclared entities?

From: <lee@sq.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 96 14:09:06 EST
Message-Id: <9610291909.AA03405@sqrex.sq.com>
To: cbullard@HiWAAY.net, lee@sq.com
Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Len wrote:
> No matter what, for XML, we get to write new code.

That's probably true for all SGML developers, which is why I am
not too worried if processing is required to make an XML file be
valid SGML (e.g. by adding a DOCTYPE header and SGL declaration and DTD).

To me, the political issue of saying XML is an SGML application is
different from the technical issue of achieving that in a way that
is sufficiently palettable.  Obviously, if it ends up being the case
that the stream of bytes coming over the network (after removing the
MIME header from the HTTP sequence) is SGML-conforming that's the simplest
and most desirable all round.

Any strict SGML implementation today will be unable to deal with
DTD-less XML files, though, and processing is needed in that case.
Putting <!Doctype xml SYSTEM "no dtd available, you lose!"> at the
start doesn't help from the technical point of view.

But if you examine the byte stream after the structovator has run & made
a DTD, you may well have valid SGML.  A philosopher might opine that
    For every DTD-less XML file
    There existeth a Document Divine,
    Which conformeth even to the uttermost mile
    Of Iso Eight Eight Seven Nine.

Well it doesn't scan very well, but it parses :-)


Lee
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 1996 14:09:36 UTC

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