- From: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 11:35:26 CDT
- To: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>, W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 10 Sep 1996 04:05:43 -0400 Martin Bryan said: >Eliminating the values would be much more flexible and very desirable, >but you must be aware of one very important thing - by eliminating the >current limitations we would AUTOMATICALLY be abandoning the use of >SGML's reference concrete syntax. Questionnaire 1, on 0.2, points out Is this a problem? If so, what? If not, why are you raising it? >that all but one of the proposals we are considering are based on the >SGML reference concrete syntax. The reference concrete syntax points, Sorry, my slip. The note to item 0.2 may be misleading, since while all the schemes mentioned are based on the reference concrete syntax, four of the eight propose to ignore quantities and capacities. They do not propose an alternate set (unless memory fails me); they simply propose to ignore their values. Like the other four, therefore, they need no concept of a difference between concrete and abstract syntax. We are in any case not limited *at all* to the proposals summarized in document DD-1996-0002; they may be regarded as straw proposals, with the subtle difference that unlike a typical 'straw proposal' they already exist independently of this group. -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen ACH / ACL / ALLC Text Encoding Initiative University of Illinois at Chicago tei@uic.edu
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 1996 12:54:17 UTC