• From: james anderson too <mecom-gmbh@m...>
• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>, "xml-dev@i..." <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 14:01:43 +0100

why do inline declarations need an additional operator? what's wrong with
allowing element - or, in a similar sense, entity declarations - to appear with
their  standard syntax?


Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> > From: Rob McDougall <RMcDouga@J...>
>
> > (1) Declarations must be performed near the top of the file.
> > (2) Declarations should be performed near where they are used.
>
> There has been a proposal for inline declarations recently.  They would
> use declaration syntax but be inside a processing instruction, e.g.
>  <?IS8879 ELEMENT dog (nose, leg+, tail) ?>
>
> (This, I believe, will not be in WebSGML, now being finalized.  But it
> may make it through the big SGML revision which looms.)
>




xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Re: Problems with Entities (was re:Embed and validation)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Problems with Entities (was re:Embed and validation)
• Next by Date: Re: Problems with Entities (was re:Embed and validation)
• Previous by thread: Re: Problems with Entities (was re:Embed and validation)
• Next by thread: Re: Problems with Entities (was re:Embed and validation)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread