• From: David Carlisle <d.p.carlisle@g...>
• To: u123724 <u123724@g...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:15:54 +0000

On 18 November 2016 at 16:40, u123724 <u123724@g...> wrote:
> Yes, I think you're right and I should leave the entities alone.
> Thanks for the link.
>
> My motivation for removing some entities for the permissive DTD is
> that the SGML declaration (WebSGML/ISO 8879 Annex K) only allows a
> single code point to be specified as the replacement for an entity,

for predefined ones does it, must admit it's been a while since I looked at
annex K:-)

> while HTML's entities also contain some multi-code point sequence
> (as detailed in
> http://sgmljs.net/docs/html5.html#html5-named-character-references).

yes I know:-)

> And I really want to align with WebSGML here, as for my application,
> having to retrieve entity sets over the net kills it performance-wise.

If you need to drop the multiple character once I'd just drop those rather than
give them different definitions which leads to silent corruption.

> Thus I was thinking that since most of the entities come from MathML,
> and MathML doesn't really belong in a group next to HTML and SVG
> anyway from a browser implementation PoV anyway,

That's a PoV I don't share!

>  I could conveniently drop some entities.

As I say dropping them would be better than giving them different definitions.

David

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SGML DTDs for HTML 5.1
    • From: u123724 <u123724@g...>

• References:
  • SGML DTDs for HTML 5.1
    • From: u123724 <u123724@g...>
  • Re: SGML DTDs for HTML 5.1
    • From: David Carlisle <d.p.carlisle@g...>
  • Re: SGML DTDs for HTML 5.1
    • From: u123724 <u123724@g...>