• From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:47:37 -0800

David,

>> I do not think it is superflous to allow ¤.
>
>Given that this is defined to be the same as $ at the lowest 
>level of xml
>parsing, I can not see any reason why the arguments currently being
>applied to get rid of attributes (which are nowhere nearly as closely
>identified with the `equivalent' element markup) do not apply to this
>case as well.

Not allowing ¤ means:

1. SML parsers will have to check for it which
   complicates implementation.

2. SML spec will have to explain it which
   complicates the spec.

For above two reasons, I do think ¤ should
be allowed.

Does this answer your question?

Best,

Don Park    -   mailto:donpark@d...
Docuverse   -   http://www.docuverse.com


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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe 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: [SML]
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: What's the current status of SAX2?
• Next by Date: RE: [SML] Without attrs, you don't need empty elements...
• Previous by thread: RE: [SML]
• Next by thread: Re: [SML]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread