• To: 'James Clark' <jjc@j...>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: A heavier-weight proposal for character entity definition
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:06:19 -0600

My problem with this is that it appears to conflate 
the large system (the internet) requirements with 
the more modest requirements of the specific 
application language.  The latter can always be built 
as a bound application with mush less support for 
character entities it doesn't need.  Combining 
all of MathML plus the other sets seems to be 
contrary to modularity and layering.  CALS tended 
to fall apart when the drive for a standard system 
conflicted with the local system builders.  A bridge too far?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@j...]

Suppose for example there is a standard W3C-defined builtin 
entity set; this would have a version number and would add new characters 
from time to time (but never change existing entity names).  There would be 
a standard mapping from a version number to a URI where a XML specification 
of the entity set would be available.  However, parsers wouldn't have to 
fetch and parse this, they could just recognize the version number and 
refer to an appropriate compiled-in table. 

• Prev by Date: Re: living fossil?
• Next by Date: RE: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s action-oriented
• Previous by thread: Re: living fossil?
• Next by thread: Better is Still Better
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread