- From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:39:37 +0100
- To: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>, W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
At 11:56 20/6/97 CDT, Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote: >4 The effect of simplifying PEs varies with the proposal: > >4a Lose the 8879 restrictions. A non-starter: valid XML documents, >including their prologs, need to be valid SGML. I agree that this >would be an improvement for 8879, since the rules in 8879 don't seem >to me to achieve their goal of preventing obfuscation (they can >always be evaded by adding another level of obfuscation, so in fact >to the extent people do want to do bizarre and reprehensible things >in the DTD, the 8879 rules make matters worse by preventing simple, >straightforward expression of bizarre and reprehensible constructs, >while allowing bizarre and convoluted expressions of those same >constructs -- a lesson not likely to be lost on the devious minds who >want to do those things in the first place). I assume it's too late for >the TC, though (we missed our chance: if we had had the % notation in >XML-ling-961114, we would have noticed that the TC could help us out >here). It may not be too late for the TC. Remember that part of the reason for the odd rules in 8879 is that 8879 had to cope with the situation where there was no REFC, just a separator. XML does not need this. I could envisage making the set of rules that apply when REFC is not present optional. But first lets agree with what is required, and what is Tim's myth. ---- Martin Bryan, 29 Oldbury Orchard, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029 E-mail: mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com For details about The SGML Centre contact http://www.sgml.u-net.com/ For details about the Open Information Interchange initiative contact http://www.echo.lu/oii/home.html
Received on Saturday, 21 June 1997 07:40:08 UTC