Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 11:24 AM +0000 2/6/02, Henry S. Thompson wrote: >> First the include element should probably be left to XInclude to define. > >I'd rather not -- remember that _if_ this flies it will be something >all XML parsers will have to support at the base level -- decoding >such definition entities will be welded in to the XML n.m >specification. So it needs to be as light-weight as possible while >still providing useful functionality. How could this be any lighter-weight than XInclude? I suppose you could leave out text includes, but that really doesn't save you very much. You could limit yourself to including entire documents or document fragments, and not allow fragment identifiers on the URLs. That would help, I suppose. But still, XInclude is a very light-weight spec. I don't know if you can make it much simpler. FYI, I think this is an interesting thought experiment, but I do *not* think anything like this (either includes or an alternative character entity definition mechanism) justifies an XML 1.2 or 2.0. -- +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@m... | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) | | http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
