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

Re: Parameter entities vs. GI name groups

From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:31:26 -0500
Message-Id: <v03007802afd47e87e60e@[]>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
>At 11:56 AM 20/06/97 CDT, Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>Sigh.  My fallback position has always been, can we banish
>PE's from the internal subset?  The idea is, even if PE's
>are agreed to be necessary for validating applications, I can
>see no good argument that a lightweight DTD-less WF doc
>reader should ever have to deal with them.

Unfortunately I see applications for PE in subsets (though if they were no
more complicated than general entities it would not be so bad.

>As for the difficulty: I (and I think I'm not alone) am
>sensitive to issues of parser size.  Processing PEs is not
>rocket science but will materially add to code bulk.  Part
>of this code size is code that checks that the PE began and
>ended at a legal place [which code SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE

I agree with this, but I don't see how we can abandon the XML is SGML
constraint now. And Michael's heartfelt plea for PEs is totally correct. We
_need_ them. It would be great if they were a lot simpler (for which, read
_NO_ contextual dependencies, or substitution value restrictions).

One they are string substitutions (with an anti-infinite substitution rule
of some sort), they are not that much bulk, given that they are little
different from general entities.

WG8, can you save us from ourselves?

   -- David

David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________
Received on Monday, 23 June 1997 14:40:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:11 UTC