On 18 November 2016 at 16:40, u123724 <> 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
