• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Getting rid of entities (was: misprocessing namespaces)
• From: "Rob Lugt" <roblugt@e...>
• Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:09:26 -0000
• 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...> <m3it9cx4um.fsf_-_@l...>

> Tim Bray
>
> Actually, you've put your finger on it.  I think we could lose
> general entities tomorrow without much weeping.
>

I disagree.  For document authors and editors (and here I am refering to
humans not machines) external general entities are a simple, compact and
convenient way to assemble document content.  I can understand that
XML-as-data would have little need for GEs, but XML-as-text benefits greatly
from their existence.

~Rob

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Getting rid of entities (was: misprocessing namespaces)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• 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...>
  • Getting rid of entities (was: misprocessing namespaces)
    • From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by Date: RE: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v
• Previous by thread: Getting rid of entities (was: misprocessing namespaces)
• Next by thread: Re: Getting rid of entities (was: misprocessing namespaces)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread