Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Paul wrote: > Kragen wrote: > > I think it would be very nice, from a processing point of view, to have > > an XML variant that didn't have CDATA sections or DTDs (although entity > > definitions are useful!). > > 1. Why entities should live in the core, if one can use > any macroprocessor to get *more* flexible functionality? > > 2. How often do we need entities outside the DTD's ? Well, I think it's important to be able to include (a) < and & and (b) characters outside my charset. > > I suspect CDATA sections are hard to live > > without if you're writing XML documents about HTML or XML, though. > > Let us have <CDATA> element ? I think up to 3-5 elements with > 'hardcoded' semantics will not cause a big problem. > > I think it is not a big problem in traditional languages > to use reserved keywords to avoid function names like > for() or if() ;-) Interesting idea. But it would be just as hard to process as the current ]]> kludge; what is the benefit? > However, this suggestion kills compatibility with XML. But not SGML :) :) > It's why I think that SML vs XML is very similiar to > XML vs SGML. > > At some point it would be easier to break the > compatibility than to support legacy. As far as I > understand, exactly that thing happened with > XML vs SGML. . . .but XML is a subset of SGML. 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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
