Re: RFC: lsb implementation proposal
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
> / Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> was heard to say:
> | Some comments. I did some work on sgml-data trying to get it ready for
> | the new scheme. Some ambiguities arose.
> |
> | section 2.1.2: add the corresponding entries such as
> | xml-iso-entities-8879.1986 in the new structure.
>
> Random thoughts: it may not be quite appropriate to call the entities
> described above as 'xml-iso-entities...' since they aren't blessed
> by ISO at all.
Yah, but they are ISO entities!
> That name is really long...
Yah.
> What distribution do they come from?
I believe from DocBk XML.
> Ideally they should be
> distributed separately, but we've never found a home to do it.
I've always thought there should be a community maintained set of
"common XML/SGML data" akin to sgml-data in Debian. It would contain
just basic DTDs and standard entities so that the different SGML/XML
dtds didn't have to keep shipping their own version of that stuff.
In the Debian sgml-data package there's also a lot of W3O stuff such
as xhtml-* and such, but I'm not sure if that should ultimately be
broken out separately (the recent release of xhtml-modular as a draft
recommendation got me thinking along those lines). Probably.
I don't really have time this month to deal with that but maybe I can
get that started in spring or summer...
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: