• To: "The Deviants" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:55:17 +1100
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020203204729.024ed7c0@p...> <5.1.0.14.2.20020131082226.02822ec0@p...> <4XOKTPSQ3W1VLJ9607AZVUSBAUOYX05.3c586905@MChamp> <093701c1a9f2$71c37820$0a2e249b@n...> <3C589A61.95139DF@p...> <5.1.0.14.2.20020131082226.02822ec0@p...> <5.1.0.14.2.20020203204729.024ed7c0@p...> <5.1.0.14.2.20020204123240.020f76b0@p...>

 From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>
 
> Actually, you've put your finger on it.  I think we could lose
> general entities tomorrow without much weeping.  

As long as "we" means "people who only do itty bitty documents
or who have sophisticated content management systems" :-)

Getting rid of entities, and substituting them for element-based solutions
is giving a gift to the vendors of content management systems or DBMS,
and requires total refits of existing schemas and DTDs.  Normally I don't quite 
get Adam Bosworth, but his recent column (back page of an XML magazine) 
about XML and file systems, is very interesting in this regard.

Cheers
Rick  Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Marcus Carr <mrc@a...>

• References:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAF anyone?
• Next by Date: Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s action-oriented
• Previous by thread: Re: Getting rid of entities (was: misprocessing namespaces)
• Next by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread