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

Re: KISS (was: Parameter entity references in WF docs)

From: Matthew Fuchs <matt@wdi.disney.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 97 9:36:10 PDT
Message-Id: <199706041636.JAA07083@scrumpox.rd.wdi.disney.com>
To: Jon.Bosak@eng.sun.com (Jon Bosak)
Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Also, with well-formedness it is possible to use an SGML DTD and XML
documents.  I suspect this will be a well exercised option for the
"heavy hitters."  Perhaps we should consider the DTD model of XML 1.0
as DTDs with training wheels and come back with a more complex version
which supports parameter entities and "&" in content models (which
seem to be the two biggest holes, if the former is dropped), etc.  It
is true that this would be much more work than the MGSW, but (if you
know you're pumping out well-formed XML) still much less than SP.  In
any case, if XML DTD's are too clumsy, people will go back to SGML for
validation.  XML 1.0 might even have a short appendix on how to write
a DTD to produce valid XML.


> [Martin Bryan, quoting Len Bullard:]
> | >  Given choices of things that I as an SGML 
> | >designer have to give up to get freedom of markup back on the 
> | >Web, I'm willing to let PEs go in the first pass.
> | 
> | And I'm willing to abandon XML if it does not let me validatable
> | maintainable  DTDs within at least a year.
> XML is optimized for use as a delivery format for structured data from
> databases, not as a database format per se.  If you need the features
> of full SGML, then you should use full SGML.
> This discussion has pretty well persuaded me that we should leave
> parameter entities out of XML 1.0.  Entities should not be multiplied
> unnecessarily.
> Jon
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 1997 12:34:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:10 UTC