Re: MathML and HTML Forms "Modules"

[Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>]

"Eve L. Maler" wrote:
> 
> Why put in hooks, when any customization layer that uses them is still a
> customization layer?  That is, you don't strictly *need* the new hooks to
> add these things as a customization layer, and if we add them to the
> official version, then we don't need the hooks anyway.
> 
> (That said, I kind of like the *.hook suffix. :-)

Yeah, it kinda appeals to the pirate thang in all of us.

----

On a more serious note, I'm not sure that the proposed 'hooks' buy us
anything more than what already available, for several reasons. First,
any content models that customizations may modify are already specified
in redeclarable parameter entities; second, it remains to be seen that
the appropriate place to locate the hooks in the content model could 
be guessed beforehand. It's difficult to predict where and how someone 
might want to customize, and therefore difficult to predict the hooks
needed. Where the proposed <equation> has:

    <!ENTITY % equation.content 
        "(alt?, (graphic+|mediaobject+)) %mathml.hook;">

it may at the time of a customization be determined that this is the
more appropriate content model:

    <!ENTITY % equation.content 
        "(alt?, (graphic+|mediaobject+|math+))">

rendering the effort of adding the hook a lost enterprise, especially
since the above declaration could occur in the customization layer anyway.
[I'm probably just reiterating Eve's point, but I thought it was important
to add the pirate comment.]

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML Grease Monkey         <mailto:altheim&#64;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025

   the honey bee is sad and cross and wicked as a weasel
   and when she perches on you boss she leaves a little measle -- archy