On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Kevin Messman wrote:
> ___Issue 1: quotations.___
> It felt completely wrong to me at first thought/glance,
> but now I'm beginning to think that it makes sense
> for this project to encode quotation marks as text and
> not as rendition. Apart from philosophical objections,
> does anyone see anything inherently wrong with this
> approach? (i guess maybe i am asking for philosophical
> The result would be something like:
> <p>The book said “<quote>Today!</quote>”</p>
If <quote> is always to be rendered with “ and ”, wouldn't it
be redundant to encode it that way? Why not have the authors create quote
elements alone, and have them rendered as “ ... ” by a
transformation at a later time?
> __Issue2: entity references___
> The editor doesn't like entity references.
> The ones I'm worried about are:
> “ ” ‘ ’ ‐ …
> They would be typed as:
> ["] ["] ['] ['] [--] [...]
> Can anyone see any problems that might arise
> from using the ascii characters in place of the
> entity references?
If you consider the very high probability that some of your hastily trained
students will make typos, an algorithm to correctly convert " to either
“ or ”, and report errors, will be something more than trivial.
I guess it all depends on how risk-averse you are. As above, why not just
use <quote> alone? That way, you'll always know where they start and end,
and if the authors make a mistake, validation will reveal it.
- Gregory Murphy <[log in to unmask]>
__o Software Engineer
_`\<,_ Solaris Software
(*)/ (*) Sun Microsystems