• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 15:00:36 +0800

>  From: Arnold, Curt <Curt.Arnold@h...

>Erlend Xverby [Erlend.Overby@u...] wrote
>
>>>What we don't need from the SGML standard:
>>> - SGML Declaration
>>> - Character entities
>>> - Minimisation
>>> - The "&" construct
>
>It looks like the XML Schema group is trying to add back the &
construct.

XFM looks to me like a kind of SGML Declaration, in that it says which
features are needed to process a document.  Similarly there is a
well-known need in XML to allow non-standard characters/glyphs (for
mathematics, advertising and Chinese especially) so it is not impossible
that there may be increased development (whether looking like entities
or numeric character references) towards better character entities too.

That only leaves minimization.  That is perhaps the nicest thing in
HTML, and perhaps will be the only SGML thing that won't be reintroduced
in the fullness of time.

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/ 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...)

• Prev by Date: RE: A processing instruction for robots
• Next by Date: RE: YML: A Grand Unification of SAX and DOM? (fwd)
• Previous by thread: RE: SGML the next big thing?
• Next by thread: RE: SGML the next big thing?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread