Print

Print


> * Some fractions are defined in the ISO lists, like 1/7, but others
>   are not, like 5/11.  Also, there is an entity representing `c/o'
>   (&incare), but none for the similar `a/c'.  Would you suggest:
>
> (1) using ISO &frac17 for the one and Non-ISO &frac5.11 (or so) for
>     the other, resp. &incare for the one and (say) &aoverc for the
>     other?
 
Yes.
 
> (2) in order to achieve more uniformity (in rendering, e.g.), use
>     Non-ISO entities for all of them
 
Maybe, particularly if I were interested in processing the raw SGML
file, rather than the entity-references-already-replaced parser output.
It would be hard, for example, to intelligently sort your fractions
unless you used all non-ISO entities. But if by "rendering" you mean the
look of the output, it makes no difference what the entity name is.
 
>     ... the replacement text for those in ISO could be their ISO
>     entity name again, but would not have to be;
 
I for one would not use the "[entname]" SDATA replacement text in your
situation. I know that some believe that both the ISO name and the
replacement system data are carved in stone (and the issue has been
discussed on this list before, I think; or was it c.t.s?), but I for one
feel very strongly that the ISO sets create a consistent set of names
for us all to use for our entities. We can replace them with whatever we
like. In fact, in order to make processing consistent, I might do
something like
 
    <!-- ISO -->
    <!ENTITY frac12 SDATA "{01 02 div}"--=fraction one-half-->
    <!ENTITY frac14 SDATA "{01 04 div}"--=fraction one-quarter-->
    <!ENTITY frac34 SDATA "{03 04 div}"--=fraction three-quarters-->
    <!ENTITY frac18 SDATA "{01 08 div}"--=fraction one-eighth-->
    <!ENTITY frac38 SDATA "{03 08 div}"--=fraction three-eighths-->
    <!ENTITY frac58 SDATA "{05 08 div}"--=fraction five-eighths-->
    <!ENTITY frac78 SDATA "{07 08 div}"--=fraction seven-eighths-->
    <!-- non-ISO -->
    <!ENTITY frac05.11 SDATA "{05 11 div}" -- 5/11 -->
    <!ENTITY frac03.27 SDATA "{03 27 div}" -- 3/27 -->
    ...
or some such.
 
> (3) for the fractions, use a completely different scheme, like <num
>     value="5/11" type=fraction> or even (please no) <num
>     value=0.45454545 type=fraction>?
 
Not unless the numeric value was what I was interested in, and then I'd
be inclined to check out some math DTD, rather than or in addition to
TEI.
 
> * When providing a new entity set along with a document (for example,
>   with the above fraction and `a/c' symbol), how do you document it --
>   only with an entity file containing
>
>   <!ENTITY frac5.11 SDATA "[frac5.11]" -- fraction 5/11 -- >
>   <!ENTITY aoverc   SDATA "[aoverc]"   -- symbol a/c    -- >
>   <!ENTITY longs    SDATA "[longs]"    -- letter long s -- >
>
>   or with a full wsd, including maybe a TeX/Metafont fragment for the
>   glyph, or something like this?
 
We currently use a middle path. The entity file itself does have
comments that document the intention in part. But a separate document,
which may or may not be sent along with the document, will give a more
in-depth description of the entities' semantics, etc.
 
> * Does anybody use the very replacement text of entities to provide TeX
>   code or ASCII transliteration or whatever in their local processing?
>   Or do you replace the standard replacement text (as in the above
>   example) with post-processors?
 
I cannot speak for others. Although I have used proprietary
text-formatter specific processing instructions as replacement text for
entities in the past, it has only been for a specific processing
purpose. I generally don't like the idea, but more importantly I think,
as I said above, that what is important about an entity reference is its
name, not its replacement text. (At least those in the "I need an entity
because this character is not on my keyboard" group.) Currently WWP
character entities are replaced either by a CDATA string that in some
way represents the character, or by an SDATA string that is the name of
the entity in square bracketts.
 
Examples:
 
    <!ENTITY amp    CDATA   "&">
    <!ENTITY equals CDATA   "=">
    <!ENTITY excl   CDATA   "!">
    <!ENTITY frac12 CDATA   "1/2">
    but...
    <!ENTITY inverteda  SDATA "[inverted a]">
 
> * I have three distinctly different forms of <app> in my document
>   ... Would you, ... use only <app> tags differentiated by type=
>   attribute, or ... three new tags, like <appSources>,
>   <appPrintVariants> and <appSynopsis>?
 
Personally I prefer using a type= on the element in question. On the
other hand, if you have any doubt, it is easier to change from
<appSource> to <app type=source> than vice-versa. (Why, you ask?
Because although changing the start-tags is trivial, changing the
end-tags is a bit harder.)
 
That's enough for today... :-)
 
-- Syd Bauman, textbase programmer/analyst
   Brown University Women Writers Project
   [log in to unmask]