LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for XML-L Archives


XML-L Archives

XML-L Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave XML-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: Composite Entities?
From: Peter Flynn <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:General discussion of Extensible Markup Language <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:10:33 +0000
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (33 lines)


> Depends on whether you are describing the whole file or the
> individual declarations in the file. The whole file *is* a parameter
> entity.

True, but so is (for example) tei2.dtd when referenced from
teifpi2.ent :-)

> I didn't name them, I just put them on a server. I'm sure Rick had a
> reason for .pen. Perhaps he uses .ent for general entities (where
> others might use .xml, making it harder to tell non-document
> entities from document entities).

Sorry, I wasn't trying to apportion blame, I just felt that a filetype
which described the content of the file ([character] entity
declarations) might be more appropriate than one which described how
you got there. ISOlat1.charents would be more like it.

> A good argument for FPIs, if you ask me :-)

Yep, except that at some stage it has to be dereferenced to a local
filename. I rather liked the old sgmls algorithm by which

   -//Davenport//DTD DocBook V3.0//EN

became

   /usr/local/lib/sgml/Davenport/DTD/DocBook_V3.0

but most OSs have problems with filenames containing [/:()]+ and would
definitely gag when the WebSGML Adaptations are applied to raise the
bar on minimum literals for FPIs...

///Peter

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main XML-L Page

Permalink



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager