- From: Steve Pepper <pepper@FALCH.NO>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 20:56:52 +0100
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
I did say I'd said my last for the time being, but I have to clear up an error I made (I think): At 18:37 06.03.97 +0100, David Durand wrote: >At 11:42 AM +0100 3/6/97, Steve Pepper wrote: >>The separation between the DTD, the LPD >>and the instance is so clear that I do not regard this as "mixing >>processing and markup". (And in fact you don't even have to put the >>LPD physically in the document if you use SP-based tools.) > >yes, funny that SP should have chosen to be non-conformant in that way. >Wihtout asking I would suspect that James is bothered by the same thing I >am, to the extent that he's willing to ignore the standard in his >implementation. I'm not sure this is the case after all. I may have been half-remembering something else (that the "-A archname" option automatically activates any LPD of the same name). But it would be a nice feature to have -- and calling it "non-conformant" is a bit silly: All that would be happening would be the on-the-fly creation of a virtual document. Nothing in the standard that prohibits that. Steve -- Steve Pepper, SGML Architect, <pepper@falch.no> Falch Infotek a.s, Postboks 130 Kalbakken, N-0902 Oslo, Norway http://www.falch.no/ tel://+47 2290 2733 fax://+47 2290 2599 "Whirlwind Guide": http://www.falch.no/people/pepper/sgmltool/
Received on Thursday, 6 March 1997 15:00:06 UTC