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.
Murray
>
> >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
> http://192.246.238.107/html2/murray.html
>
> 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,
>
> right?
>
>
> --
> Eric W. Sink, Software Engineer -- eric@spyglass.com 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."
>
>