Re: Parameter entities vs. GI name groups

Oops, yeah, you're right.  I forgot local override entities.  And that's
exactly the kind that would tend to be used in an internal subset to
override what's in the external subset.

	Eve

At 07:17 PM 6/20/97 -0400, B. Tommie Usdin wrote:
>Eve L. Maler wrote:
>>Having parameter entities for just (1) complete declarations (modules), (2)
>>complete model groups (nearly equivalent to GI name groups), and (3)
>>keywords for marked sections (switches) greatly impoverishes the set of
>>useful PEs.  You don't have PEs for:
>>
>>4 Individual attribute specifications (common attributes)
>>5 Sets of elements with which you build up repeatable-OR content models
>>  ("classes" and "mixtures" in Jeanne's and my methodology)
>>6 Other content model subgroups
>>7 Other things that are less needful, but still useful
>>
>>If I can't have at least 1 through 5, I can't get away with doing
>>high-quality, complex production DTDs.
>
>I agree that 1, 2, 3, and 5 are essential to the complex DTD world.  (I
>think we can live without 4, although I want it.)
>
>But there's another aspect of PEs that isn't on Eve's list that I feel is
>important; the ability to declare them multiple times, and an unambiguous
>rule about which over-rides which.  I don't actually care if the first,
>last, longest, or cutest is used as long as I can declare several and know
>which will be ignored and which active.
>
>-- Tommie

Received on Friday, 20 June 1997 21:58:36 UTC