Re: Perceived Consensus: Murray's entity stuff goes inMurray Maloney <murray@sco.COM>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 11:27:49 EDT
From: Murray Maloney <murray@sco.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Perceived Consensus: Murray's entity stuff goes in
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
The "Additional Entity Sets (Proposed)" was presented
as a way of committing HTML to using the 8879 entity sets.
I think that we would all agree that we should not adopt
other entity-naminmg schemes and break one-to-one compatibility
with the rest of the SGML docu-verse. N'est pas?
However, since those sets are not in use in anybody's browser
except ours, I readily acknowledge that there is a very strong
and valid argument against including this section in the spec.
I wonder, then, if there might be some more appropriate part of
the RFC -- perhaps where the relationship between HTML and SGML
is described -- to commit HTML to SGML common practice(s) including
the use of these well-known entity sets.
> >I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but...
> I guess this wasn't as clear as it could have been. Murray sent 4
> specific files to the list, in HTML format, specifying content to be
> added to the spec. Those files are currently sitting on
> We're still sorting out where this material is supposed to be pasted
> into the actual document, but my understanding is that it should go in,
> except for:
> >Please don't put any proposals that involve characters outside of
> >ISO Latin 1 into the 2.0 spec.
> Which I believe refers to the "Additional Entity Sets (Proposed)" section
> at the botton of entities.html,
> Eric W. Sink, Software Engineer -- firstname.lastname@example.org 217-355-6000 ext 237
> I don't speak for Spyglass. They don't even let me adjust the thermostat.
> :-) :-)
> "Never put your tongue on a glacier."