Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
[Rob Lugt] > Simon St.Laurent wrote > > >Sure, I was thinking of adding these extensions (perhaps they should be > > >called contractions) as an option to ElCel's xmlcanon [1]. Would anybody > > >find this useful? > > > > As long as it's a separate part and not built right into the parser, it > > sounds good to me. > > That would only be possible if the suggested changes were handled by some > kind of pre-processor. I don't think such a pre-processor would be viable; > it would need to have all the features of an XML parser itself. However, I > don't see updating the XML parser as being a problem, so long as the > extensions are controlled by options which are disabled by default. > No more options! We have too many already. Options reduce interoperability. Cheers, Tom P
|
