• From: u123724 <u123724@g...>
• To: David Carlisle <d.p.carlisle@g...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:40:23 +0100

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

Also, using entity sets isn't quite the same as using predefined
entities, because predefined entiies, as a definitorial concept,
capture that the browser, rather than some preprocessing system
handles expansion into code points.

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:14 PM, David Carlisle <d.p.carlisle@g...> wrote:
> Just one comment on the entity definitions, I think that you should
> use the ones from
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-entity-names/
>
> that is the declarations in
>
> https://github.com/w3c/xml-entities/blob/gh-pages/2007/htmlmathml-f.ent
>
>
> It took some years to finally get html xhtml mathml (at least) all
> using the same definitions and it would be a shame
> to start promoting an almost-but-not-quite-the-same list now.
>
> The list that is inline in the html5 spec is derived from the same source.
>
> David

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SGML DTDs for HTML 5.1
    • From: David Carlisle <d.p.carlisle@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...>