From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Bischoff To: Jorge Luiz Godoy Filho Cc: Subject: Re: Support for XML iso entities Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 18:51:00 -0000 Message-id: <01072522365503.01176@grumble.caldera.de> References: <01052910534905.01734@boson.caldera.de> X-SW-Source: 2001-q3/msg00018.html On Tuesday 29 May 2001 15:22, Jorge Luiz Godoy Filho wrote: > >> > Hi Jorge. I hope you are doing fine. > >> > >> Hi! I'm OK, thanks. :-)) > > > > Super! :-) > > Thanks! And how about you? Too much work? As you can say with the date of this reply, yes :-(. > > I've simply been putting everything together because of this > > interoperability, and to avoid multiplying the number of > > packages. Don't you think we've got already enough of them? ;-) > > No, I don't. As a base package for SGML processing, I think it should > be only for SGML processing. Without caring for what tool can or > cannot use it. If the specs says that we should use those entities in > some specific way, that's what we should go for. The problem is that XML processing is SGML processing. > XML specs says that entities must be specified in Unicode. So, the > specs requires different things. Besides, I don't see any problem > having a package with only XML entities (and that package might > requires sgml-common, for the catalog installation and other tools). I don't see any problem with having only one package either. > > I agree that a separate xml-common package could be a valid > > technical solution, I just don't really see a good reason why we > > should go this way. > > The reason is: having fewer things, makes you worry with fewer > problems. And (I know disk is cheap) it will make our packages smaller > and more specific to a desired function. Come on... sgml-common is ridiculously small, and now you want to split it again... > > Everything this package contains are very basic and small > > ressources, although a bit heterogeneous. I think that both versions > > of the ISO entities go well together in this package. > > I still think that there should be an xml-common. BUT, I don't want to > push you to this decision. I just want, if it will be in the same > package, to be able to split them here and have all the tools > working. There should be no requirement os assumption on any of the > tools that I will always have both XML and SGML stuff together since > this isn't true. People get really lost with this complex system and > all this catalog and entities stuff... Having unused stuff installed > there will make them even more confused. Having too much packages doesn't help a lot with respect to complexity either. > As I saida, this is only my opinion. If you decide not to take it, > I'll accept and keep on using the packages. :-) I'm no dictator ;-). I need to speak about this with Mark Galassi. A lot of people seem to (unfortunately ;-) ) agree with you. Sad you didn't make it to go to San Diego. We could have met.