W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > February 1997

Re: 1.3, Notation: SGML? Reference Concrete?

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 15:34:13 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 11:09 AM 31/01/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>1.3.a Should we assume that saying links are expressed using SGML elements
>and attributes, and describing them in SGML terms, is a satisfactorily
>complete syntax spec, thus avoiding a requirement for any BNF?

Absolutely; it's more compact and the BNF would be big and hairy and
duplicate XML.

>1.3.b If links are SGML elements, should require XML-style reference
>concrete syntax + quoted attribute values?  I.e. assert that
>all links would fit into XML docs?

I want this to be usable with real SGML.  So I think we should *not*
restrict them to XML-style syntax, but insert a usage note saying it
won't work with XML unless you follow XML rules. - Tim
Received on Monday, 3 February 1997 18:35:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:07 UTC