• From: "Lauren Wood" <lauren@s...>
• To: "'xml-dev@i...'" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:28:41 -0800

On 3 Dec 99, at 12:14, Arnold, Curt wrote:

> It looks like the XML Schema group is trying to add back the & construct.
> If you have a compelling justification for continued suppression, please
> rant long and loud.

How about every SGML parser author I've talked to says the & 
construct was the biggest, hardest part (which means probably the 
buggiest) of the entire parser? I think the XML WG was right in 
throwing it out of XML in the first place.


Lauren

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...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: SGML the next big thing?
    • From: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liamquin@i...>

• References:
  • RE: SGML the next big thing?
    • From: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@h...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX/C++ vs. SAX2
• Next by Date: Re: SAX/C++ vs. SAX2
• Previous by thread: RE: SGML the next big thing?
• Next by thread: RE: SGML the next big thing?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread