• From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:29:46 -0400

Ronald Bourret wrote:

> > I agree with Paul 100% on this one.  For precisely this reason, DDML
> > remained entity free for a very long time (though I got outvoted on
> > unparsed entities in the end.)
> 
> As one of those who helped outvote Simon, I'd just like to say that I have
> completely recanted.  Including unparsed entity definitions in DDML was a
> mistake and I now regret it.

I remain unreconstructed.

If we are to have validatable ENTITY/ENTITIES attributes, then
we must have unparsed entity declarations as well.  Either
lose both or keep both, say I.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@c...
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Argh...Entities
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: Argh...Entities
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rbourret@i...>

• Prev by Date: RDF et IDL ?
• Next by Date: Re: Redirecting XML files?
• Previous by thread: RE: Argh...Entities
• Next by thread: Re: Argh...Entities
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread