- From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 09:43:36 +0100
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 10:03 18/5/97 GMT, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: ><PROPOSAL> >There should be a PI which expands GIs within a scope to (more) fully >qualified names. This PI may be ignored by WF processors, but they are >advised to pass it to the application. For validation the parser is required >to perform this expansion. ></PROPOSAL> > >Example ><![CDATA[ > ><!DOCTYPE cml SYSTEM "cml.dtd" [ <!-- unqualified, just as an example --> ><!-- an additional version the math dtd *using* FQNames; i.e. long-winded --> ><!entity % mathml SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/some/where/fqmathml.dtd"> >%mathml; >]> ><CML> ><MOL Title="benzene"> >... ><XLIST TITLE="symmetry operators"> ><?XML-DOCTYPE DOCTYPE="org.w3.mathml"?> ><MATRIX> ><MATRIXROW>1<SEP/>0<SEP/>0<SEP/></MATRIXROW> ><MATRIXROW>0<SEP/>0<SEP/>1<SEP/></MATRIXROW> ><MATRIXROW>0<SEP/>1<SEP/>0<SEP/></MATRIXROW> ></MATRIX> ><?XML-DOCTYPE?> <!-- exists from math scope --> >... ></MOL> ></CML> >]]> Nice idea - one question though. Should it be required that the doctype be declared as part of the relevant document type definition? At present there seems to be no link between the DTD declared as %mathml in the internal subset and that used in the XML-DOCTYPE PI. I can see a good case for a formal definition of the relevant doctype as an entity and then using XML-DOCTYPE to point to this, giving it a statement along the lines <?XML-DOCTYLE DTD="mathml">. This has one ancilliary benefit. Instead of qualifying each embedded DTD's element name with a long URL it needs only be qualified by a short (parameter) entity name. This would also match subdoc (and concur) much more neatly as here it is the DTD name that is used to "qualify" the element name. ---- Martin Bryan, The SGML Centre, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029 WWW home page: http://www.sgml.u-net.com/
Received on Monday, 19 May 1997 04:48:46 UTC