Re: [LSB-xml-sgml] Re: Patch: Convert SGML/XML appendix to just SGML
RIght. By removing all references to XML from the sgmlspec.sgml appendix, we
can put forth an SGML specification which everyone agrees upon for LSB 1.0.
Then we can continue to work towards an agreement on the XML specification as
a separate work group following the LSB 1.0 specification.
If we include the references to XML in the sgmlspec.sgml appendix as Karl
suggests, then we would be putting forth a defacto specification for XML as
well--and I think that anyone on the lsb-xml-sgml list would agree that we
have not reached a consenus on that particular matter just yet.
Karl, for the sake of allowing the SGML specification go forth as part of LSB
1.0 can you agree that we should drop all references to XML in the spec?
Otherwise, we will end up sacrificing the SGML appendix entirely, which
would be a great shame.
Dan
On Thursday 07 June 2001 03:27, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:26:21PM +0200, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> > Dan Scott <dan.scott@acm.org> writes:
> > > Folks, do you agree that this is the right solution for now?
> >
> > No. Please, _restore_ the following hunks:
> >
> > --- sgml/sgmlspec.sgml Sat May 26 07:54:48 2001
> > +++ sgml2/sgmlspec.sgml Wed Jun 6 07:00:52 2001
> > @@ -214,11 +214,6 @@
> > </varlistentry>
> > </variablelist>
> >
> > -<para>
> > -At least for the present, all XML documents are also SGML
> > -documents, so it seems unnecessary to create
> > -<filename class="directory">/usr/share/xml</filename> and <filename
> > class="directory">/etc/xml</filename>. -</para>
> > </sect1>
>
> And I disagree. That was the whole point of the debate we had.
>
> Daniel
Reply to: