• From: William Lindsey <lindsey@d...>
• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:57:07 -0700 (MST)

Sean McGrath wrote:
> >Do xml-dev'ers think XFM is a good idea?

Tim Bray replied:
> I think having a way for an instance to promise it references no
external
> entities is a no-brainer.
[ ... snip ... ]

Should we invent yet another way for the instance to tell us about
itself?  We already have the BOM, the XML declaration, the Document
Type declaration, and the XML-Stylesheet PI.  I guess it hasn't
been decided how an instance is associated with a W3C Schema.

Maybe we should investigate a more general way to specify all
this stuff externally. It seems to fit within the scope of
the problem Tim outlines in "Related-Resource Discovery for XML" [1].
Is there a W3C XML packaging activity?

Best,

Bill

[1] http://www.textuality.com/xml/why-pkg.html



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...)

• Prev by Date: RE: XML4J EA2 --> Xerces-J 1.0
• Next by Date: Re: XFM (or something similar)
• Previous by thread: RE: XML4J EA2 --> Xerces-J 1.0
• Next by thread: Re: XFM (or something similar)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread