Re: Parameter entities vs. GI name groups

>
>
>At 10:23 AM 20/06/97 -0500, David G. Durand wrote:
>>Let's relax compatibility with SGML and make PEs into straight text macros
>>rather than eliminating them. I think that this would be a win for users as
>>well, since the harders thing about learning PEs is that the string
>>substitution model is _not_ correct.

I think most of the people will not recognize, that the
string substituion model is not correct, since they put
the border of physical structur to logical borders.

Who would really do something like this?:

<!doctype paragraph [

<!entity %foo "ragraph - - (#pc">
<!element pa%foo;data)>
]>
<paragraph>hello</paragraph>

Tim Bray wrote:

Exact-a-mundo.  There is nothing wrong in principle with having
a macro-processor facility in markup declarations, and I certainly

Macro-processor facility is IMHO much harder to implement
than PEs with restricted use.

>Having said that, I can't at this point support simply dropping 
>SGML compatibility on this issue (although it *would* solve the
>problem).

Supporting only a subset of PE replacement rules does
not violate XML´s SGML compatibility.

This subset can restrict usage of PEs to that whats known
as CONSTANT in programming languages. PE allow to parameterize
DTDs. They are not there to introduce new Syntaxes etc.

The subset is rather small and should not be too hard to explain.
It can be built directly into the production rules.
>
>Regards/Mit freundlichen Gruessen
>===================================================================
>Bernhard Weichel              Phone:  (49) 711 811 8322
>Robert Bosch GmbH               Fax:  (49) 711 811 8262
>Dept. K3/EES4                 eMail:  bernhard.weichel@pcm.bosch.de
>P.O. Box 30 02 40                     
>D-70442 Stuttgart
>Germany
>
>

>
>
>

Received on Friday, 20 June 1997 11:43:21 UTC