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

Re: Production 21 (and others)

From: Terry Allen <tallen@fsc.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 07:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199701291535.HAA20033@ishtar.fsc.fujitsu.com>
To: U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU, w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
Michael writes:

 [21] Comment := "<!--*"{Misc}*{HS}"-->"
 [21] Comment := "<!--*"({NHS}|("-"{SH}*{NHS})|({SH}+{NHS}))*{HS}"-->"
 [21] Comment :=
 "<!--*"({NHS}|("-"("*""-"?)*{NHS})|(("*""-"?)+{NHS}))*{HS}"-->"
 [21] Comment :=
 "<!--*"([^-*]|("-"("*""-"?)*[^-*])|(("*""-"?)+[^-*]))*{HS}"-->"
 [21] Comment :=
 "<!--*"([^-*]|("-"("*""-"?)*[^-*])|(("*""-"?)+[^-*]))*("*"|"-*")+"-->"

I'm sure the SERB had good reasons for the new comment syntax,
but it certainly isn't simple and some of us will have to explain
it to skeptics.  Could we have a very short statement of what
was wrong with SGML comment syntax that the XML comment syntax
fixes, and why the XML solution was chosen?

Regards,
    Terry Allen    Fujitsu Software Corp.    tallen@fsc.fujitsu.com
"In going on with these experiments, how many pretty systems do we build,
 which we soon find outselves obliged to destroy?" - Benjamin Franklin
  A Davenport Group Sponsor:  http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 1997 10:35:42 UTC

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