And this was a late request for an "enhancement." It was out of
order, and as you now learn, acceding to it has disrupted the consensus
that existed on the draft you wanted to get finished so badly.
I don't want to use sgmls as the front end to a browser. I want to
be able to parse my HTMl docs against the DTD and HTML sdecl
(they're supposed to be conforming) and get out of the parse something
corresponding to what the browser will do with the same input.
I want to do this in a conforming manner.
You suggest that I go break sgmls to be bugward compatible with
a request for a new feature, which came up in the course of the
10646 discussion. I say this request is not appropriate for this
version, and that the chance to address the issue in a conformant
manner will arise as soon as the advocates of 10646 get off their
hind ends (or maybe sit down on them some more ...) and produce
an I18n I-D.
I also say that if any old stuff can be thrown in at the last
minute you're never going to get the spec finished. You were
asking for corrections, not new features.
Regards,
-- Terry Allen (terry@ora.com) O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. Editor, Digital Media Group 101 Morris St. Sebastopol, Calif., 95472 occasional column at: http://gnn.com/meta/imedia/webworks/allen/A Davenport Group sponsor. For information on the Davenport Group see ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/davenport/README.html or http://www.ora.com/davenport/README.html