

Re: XML, HTML, SGML, life, the universe, and everything

From: <streich@austin.sar.slb.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 01:53:22 CST
Message-Id: <9611130753.AA15586@odie>
To: Charles@sgmlsource.com
Cc: W3C-SGML-WG@w3.org
> There is an alternative even for this point: don't support name token values
> (enums) at all in XML 1.0. Then you are 100% conforming and you don't have to
> explain the indefensible. Enums can be added as a feature in 2.0 when the
> constraint is removed for SGML97.

I understand that it can be difficult to explain why you can't have
duplicate enumerated values, but I fail to understand how this one,
relatively small issue is worth breaking SGML conformance.

It seems rather curious to me that the ERB considers it "political
suicide" to fail to accomodate the "typical" empty end tag syntax when
processing an HTML document, yet feels that it is politically "safe"
to break SGML conformance. I hate to ask, but is this an indication
of preference towards a particular community of users or vendors?
I'm not being argumentitive here. Sadly, I feel quite detached in
this process and believe that this is a reasonably objective

If implementors don't like this restriction, fine. They're going to
do what they want anyway. Removing the restriction in the spec,
however, seems like a bad move to me.

Received on Wednesday, 13 November 1996 02:53:28 EST
