• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• To: "james anderson too" <mecom-gmbh@m...>, <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:43:50 +1100

 
> From: james anderson too <mecom-gmbh@m...>

> 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?

That all has to be discussed.  (I really shouldnt have mentioned that, I find
it confusing enough trying to keep up with the latest XML draft, let alone
all the suggestions being considered for SGML!  There is a big back catalog of
changes that WG4 has approved for the revision. The ones with a specific
correlation to XML have been expedited for WebSGML [the update to SGML] 
so that XML and SGML will be in synch.)


Rick Jelliffe
 

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...)

• Prev by Date: Re: Problems with Entities (was re:Embed and validation)
• Next by Date: Re: Position Statement on FPIs sought
• Previous by thread: Re: Problems with Entities (was re:Embed and validation)
• Next by thread: PI, XMLDecl, and EncodingPI
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread