Re PEs

Len Bullard replying to Alex Milowski:
| > Simplicity does not always equal functionality.
| 
| True but it goes a long way toward first pass 
| implementation simplicity and as stated, "training wheels" 
| DTDs.  I don't find PEs hard; just rugs for hiding 
| domain messiness.

I have taken to heart much of what Len has said wrt PEs and complex
DTDs, but I would like to know where in TEI or Docbook this valuable 
feature is used to cover over "domain messiness."

| However, I like Dan Connolly's suggestion about functionality  
| beyond "pastie thingies" and think that should be 
| considered before a final decision about PEs is made.  
| This may be a very golden opportunity.

Are we still doing SGML?  If PEs go away in XML, the need
for SGML DTDs increases without bound.  If I need to maintain
my DTD in SGML even when I'm going to output XML, why do I
need an XML DTD?  Would it not be simpler to eliminate DTDs
from XML entirely?  If some completely new markup language is 
to be defined (a legitimate goal), why cling to SGML conformance?

The question "why not eliminate DTDs from XML entirely" is a
serious one, as are all my questions, and I expect a response
to it from the SGML ERB.



  Terry Allen    Electronic Publishing Consultant    tallen[at]sonic.net
                   http://www.sonic.net/~tallen/
    Davenport and DocBook:  http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
          T.A. at Passage Systems:  terry.allen[at]passage.com

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 1997 22:20:49 UTC