- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 10:54:18 -0500
- To: "Christopher R. Maden" <crm@eps.inso.com>
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Christopher R. Maden wrote:
>
> [Jon Bosak]
> > This discussion has pretty well persuaded me that we should leave
> > parameter entities out of XML 1.0. Entities should not be
> > multiplied unnecessarily.
>
> It's only convinced me to drastically restrain their use.
That's my current opinion as well.
We need things like parameter entities to provide sharing
and modularity in DTDs. But parameter entities as they
exist are too hairy.
I think they should be modelled not as syntactic, token
pasting thingies, but as typed language elements.
I have done some work to embed typed parameter entities
into 8879 syntax. The result is that the types are
syntactically evident, ala hungarian notation.
I also had to tweak the marked section syntax a bit:
--------------
http://www.w3.org/XML/9705/hacking
XML Modules
About namespaces in DTDs... how about:
<![ module-name [
<!entity module-name "IGNORE">
... module contents ...
]]>
which is just like:
#ifdef _module_h
#define _module_h
... module contents ...
#endif /* _module_h */
I made a patch to psgml mode to allow me to use this syntax.
You still have to have a partial order on your modules. And it's still
just one big namespace.
So it's just like C -- which is good enough for lots of things, but not
for truly independent
development.
...
Parameter Entities
.cm
content model. Fully parenthesized. Can be used anywhere a gi can
be used.
.orList
union expression. orLists can be concatendated. @#hmmm.. namegroup?
.valType
attribute value type, e.g. CDATA with overloaded semantics
.tagType
list of attribute declarations, ala a list of methods, i.e. an
object type
.dtd
link to another entity in DTD syntax
--------------
--
Dan Connolly, Architecture Domain Lead
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
phone://1/512/310-2971
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 1997 11:54:17 UTC