Re: HTML 2.0 LAST CALL: Numeric character refs

Daniel W. Connolly (
Sat, 3 Jun 95 09:51:33 EDT

In message <9506030811.aa13326@dali.scocan.sco.COM>, Murray Maloney writes:
>David - Morris writes:
>> On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Terry Allen wrote:
>> Terry quoting Dan:
>> > | Perhaps this is more clear:
>> > |
>> > | |On the other hand, references to undeclared entities and undefined
>> > | |numeric character references (i.e. references to code positions that
>> > | |are not in the domain of the document character set) should be treated
>> > | |as data characters.
>> >
>I have to agree with Terry on this. This is a last minute change
>and it is does not conform with SGML in practice or theory.

I disagree: the new verbage in no way conflicts with SGML -- in
practice nor in theory. But I can't refute you because you cite no
evidence. Please cite the evidence that leads you to this conclusion,
and I'll explain why I disagree.

>Neither Dave nor Dan have raised any argument which justifies
>breaking SGML conformance, and Terry has clearly demonstrated
>and explained that the proposed changes do break conformance.

No he hasn't. He showed that sgmls treats a non-conforming document
differently than is suggested by the above verbage. That an HTML user
may treat a non-conforming document differently than sgmls does not
mean that the HTML spec is inconsistent with ISO8879.