OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] entity definitions

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Dear David,

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:37:30 +0100
David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote:
> That's where I disagree. I don't want to use non-xml systems 9which is
> what you are suggesting here).

Several folks have so stated; I don't agree.  I think that statement is
based on a particular interpretation of the spec, which, while it appears
to be ("offensively") supported by the Core WG, is not the only possible

> there have been several proposals in thsi area eg Simon's ents
> http://simonstl.com/projects/ents/
> or even for that matter my generation of the Mathml and draft ISO entity
> sets from unicode.xml
> http://www.w3.org/2003/entities/xml

Thanks for the pointers.  Both of these efforts, though, appear to me to
address a slightly different subset of the problem (both are primarily
concerned with character entities only, for one thing).

I'd like to have an XML format for defining replacement content.

> Howver much I'd like to be able to have some non-dtd mechanism, and in
> particular a mechanism that was not tied to the head of a document,
> I don't want to lead mathml users into a gheto of non-standard parsers
> handling non-xml, so it seems to me that the political issues of making
> this legal xml are more important and need to be solved first. 

Here we differ, and I'm far more of the opinion expressed by Richard
Tobin in this thread, or outlined in my earlier email, that the best
approach is to begin with the parser developers and maintainers, showing
them that there is a constituency supporting an alternate interpretation
of the relevant constraints, and asking for features.  Given that
demonstrated utility, it might be possible to convince even a Core that
would publish a "go away, we like what we've got" note that something else
is worth supporting.

> Probably there has to be some syntax, presumably in xml form, to declare
> the things, but the exact syntax is not really important at this stage.

And there I strongly disagree.  I doubt that there will be any traction on
the problem unless a complete solution is proposed.

Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war for the lead role in a cage?
                -- Pink Floyd


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS