RE: Grand unified entity definition set [was: Errors in MathML DT D]

David Carlisle [] wrote on 20 April 2003 11:06:
> Makes sense to me. Apart from the directory/web site layout I 
> have long
> been pushing for a "grand unified entity definition" set that would
> not be so closely tied to mathematics and would be consistent between
> mathml and xhtml on the w3c side and also docbook and tei etc further
> wide. Currently no two of those have compatible entity definitions
> (see a long diatribe on this at

That would be a very good idea. I tend to consider the various entity
definition sets as identical, but I know they are not. 

Elsevier's DTDs have a large set of entity definitions, but it surprises me
each time again when I realize that this is just a side effect of including
the MathML DTD. 

With kind regards,
Simon Pepping
DTD Development and Maintenance

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 03:48:07 UTC