> I actually make ISO10646 a binding constraint without putting it
> in the public text (the SGML declaration). See what you think:
OK so you expressed it as an application constraint rather in SGML, but
the end result is the same as my suggestion (first 256 chars of 10646 as
document character set); it closes the door to massive proliferation of
incompatible document character sets which the earlier wording of the
seemed to allow.
That was my concern, and the latest wording covers that one. It also
means that people can understand the direction multinationalisation
seems to be taking, just by reading the spec rather than the spec plus
the html-wg archives ;-)
( Incidentally, does that mean that conformance to application profiles
cannot be tested by an SGML system? )
> How's that for a compromise?
It seems to address my concerns, so I am happy with it -- especially if
it means 2.0 goes out the door on time.
-- Chris Lilley, Technical Author +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Manchester and North HPC Training & Education Centre | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Computer Graphics Unit, Email: Chris.Lilley@mcc.ac.uk | | Manchester Computing Centre, Voice: +44 61 275 6045 | | Oxford Road, Manchester, UK. Fax: +44 61 275 6040 | | M13 9PL BioMOO: ChrisL | | URI: http://info.mcc.ac.uk/CGU/staff/lilley/lilley.html | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "The first W in WWW will not wait." François Yergeau | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+