A small question
Hello,
I've got a small question: where all these entities come from? :)
Well, what actually I am trying to find out is why certain things are different
in different files. To begin with, let's have a look on /usr/lib/sgml/catalog
file:
PUBLIC "ISO 8879:1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN//HTML" entities/ISOlat1
PUBLIC "ISO 8879-1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN//HTML" entities/ISOlat1 -- incorrect, deprecated --
PUBLIC "ISO 8879:1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN" entities/ISOlat1
PUBLIC "ISO 8879-1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN" entities/ISOlat1 -- incorrect, deprecated --
These make me think that it does not matter whether //HTML suffix is there the
entities are the same. OK, let's have a look on entities/ISOlat1 file:
<!-- Character entity set. Typical invocation:
<!ENTITY % ISOlat1 PUBLIC
"ISO 8879-1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN//HTML">
%ISOlat1;
-->
This time I see that the file is for HTML-specific entities. Moreover,
earlier in the file I see:
This has been extended for use with HTML to cover the full
set of codes in the range 160-255 decimal.
Occasionally I found yet another file iso-entities-8879.1986/ISOlat1 which
has a simple notice:
<!-- Character entity set. Typical invocation:
<!ENTITY % ISOlat1 PUBLIC
"ISO 8879:1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN">
%ISOlat1;
-->
Aha, at least, this makes me think that these two files are different! They
are defining different sets of entities. BUT, according to
/usr/lib/sgml/catalog file, the first set of entities can be also referred to
as to "...//EN".
So here is my question, how I should treat all this ifnormation?
My main concern (well, it's where this investigatation started from) is entity
named copy. If I look into first file I see
<!ENTITY copy CDATA "©">
I see no definition for copy in the second file, while iso-.../ISOnum file
defines:
<!ENTITY copy SDATA "[copy ]"--=copyright sign-->
These are different definitions and while in the second case I could process
this SDATA [copy ] for producing © in HTML output and \copyright in TeX
output, I lack this possibility in first case.
Please comment.
Thanks,
--
Mike
PS I may have confused using `a' and `the' in some case as Russian lacks this
notion. :)
Reply to: