- From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 11:36:13 +0100
- To: cbullard@hiwaay.net
- Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 11:23 1/6/97 -0500, len bullard wrote: > On the other hand, I do know >which features of SGML and which implementations of SGML give >users/authors >the perception of difficulty and overbuilt parameterized DTDs are >among them. Many years of experience has shown that the best way to get users to understand DTDs is to break them up into small digestable pieces that are easy to understand, rather than to try to give them a one-size-fits-all solution. The easiest way to do this is to create the DTD as a set of reusable fragments that can be fitted together using PEs to make a complete model for a final deliverable. Only by using such approaches do you get user buy-in. > We have to know when an argument is good >for the goose and the gander and who gets to be the goose. >MS is just one of the animals in this barnyard. The goose is the twerp who tries to create, deliver and maintain DTDs withiout using PEs! The greedy gander at the moment would seem to be 'lazy' developers who want to duck the problem. We must at least follow Henry's solution and allow PEs for calling in element sets if not elsewhere. For real world use, though, we should allow PE's in models as well. (If we do end up restricting parameter entities to containing just complete markup instructions then I would argue that my original suggestion re adding namespace identifiers to the parameter entity declarations makes more sense than Henry's idea of using name space declarations based on marked sections.) ---- Martin Bryan, The SGML Centre, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029 WWW home page: http://www.sgml.u-net.com/
Received on Monday, 2 June 1997 06:36:46 UTC