- From: Steven J. DeRose <sjd@eps.inso.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 15:45:13 -0400
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 11:55 AM 05/23/97 -0700, Andrew Layman wrote:
>I have no objection to using CONCUR syntax if it has the same meaning as
>the proposed namespace qualification. It was my understanding that
>CONCUR did not permit DTD mixing. If my understanding is wrong--if
>CONCUR does allow attributes and elements from multiple namespaces to be
>used within one element, without changing any DTDs--then using
>parentheses is fine with me.
It *could* allow that if it had the changes I pointed to before: no longer
requiring that every DTD cover the entire document (this is similar to the
SGML fragment problem), and having a way to require that multiple DTDs be
synchronous (which option we would use, though CONCUR in general need not).
That is, we want to rule out certain things needed with more general CONCUR,
like
<(PLAY)SPEECH SPKR=ME> <(POEM)LINE>Quoth the raven, </(PLAY)SPEECH>
<(PLAY)SPEECH SPKR=YOU> He did, huh? </(POEM)LINE></(PLAY)SPEECH>
<(PLAY)SPEECH SPKR=ME> <(POEM)LINE>sometimes more.
</(POEM)LINE></(PLAY)SPEECH>
Short of that, CONCUR is not quite a fit, and if we're not using () to mean
CONCUR, I sure would not want to use it. We could, of course, do something
that SGML could later extend/simplify CONCUR to subsume.
Steven J. DeRose, Ph.D., Chief Scientist
Inso Electronic Publishing Solutions
(formerly EBT)
Received on Friday, 23 May 1997 15:48:21 UTC