[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 07:33 AM 11/1/2002 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>Ann Navarro wrote:
>
>>I have to agree with previous comments that while the position of the
>>XML Core WG may be technically feasible, it does nothing to address the
>>needs of the stated audience for named character entities.
>
>Could you expand on this? By stated audience I assume you mean HTML.
>XHTML wants to have human-readable names for less-used characters. A
>bunch of declarations in the DTD allow this to happen. It's easier in XML
>than SGML because you can map them to something interoperable, namely
>Unicode code points rather than SDATA voodoo.
>
>Which requirement is being unmet? Is there a requirement that DTDs not be
>involved in the process?
OK, maybe we need to back up.
First:
My problem has always been that to use named character entities in an XML
Schema-based language, you have to use a DTD *as well* to make this happen.
This makes XML Schema mind-bogglingly annoying as an incomplete solution
for a language definition, that we have no choice but to use based on
political pressure.
Second:
Asking document authors to write DTDs to simply use the trademark symbol
(or insert your common character of choice), something they've done for
years, strikes me as the result of laziness on our part (we = the creators
of standards). They shouldn't have to do that. Any reasonable justification
escapes me.
Ann
-----
Ann Navarro, WebGeek, Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com
say what? http://www.snorf.net/blog
|
