[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

LPDs [Was: Summary of critiques of XML Namespace fromcomments

• From: Tony Graham <tgraham@antenna.co.jp>
• To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
• Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 12:05:24 +0100

On 24/07/2021 09:26, Marcus Reichardt wrote:
...

(Now SGML also has LPDs, a type of declaration set available in addition to DTDs, to basically do the same thing, and that can be
even pipelined OOTB; it's unclear to me why archforms didn't extend
LPDs but rather invented it's own IS10744 PI for basically the same
thing without adding power where it was needed, such as for dealing
better with attribute mappings or filtering).

I don't have such a rosy recollection of the Link Process Definition
(LPD) facility.  Back in the day, we used it exactly once, and the LPDs
were dropped as soon as we could replace them with proper software.

LPDs could add attributes to elements based on the element's context,
yes.  This works well enough in the two-level toy example in the SGML
Handbook, but if you need more context, you end up with an explosion of
LPDs for the different contexts.

The utility of putting style information as part of the validation never
made sense to me either.

I wouldn't count LPDs as one of the useful features of SGML.

Regards,


Tony Graham.
--
Senior Architect
XML Division
Antenna House, Inc.
----
Skerries, Ireland
tgraham@antenna.co.jp

• References:
  • Summary of critiques of XML Namespace from comments to James Clark2010 blog
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
  • Re: Summary of critiques of XML Namespace from comments toJames Clark 2010 blog
    • From: Marcus Reichardt <u123724@gmail.com>