Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Bob Foster wrote: > I think users want not to lose the following when they use non-DTD > validation: > > - Internal entities for common well-known entity sets, like those of XHTML, > MathML, etc. > - Internal entities for user-defined shorthand > - External parsed entities (includes) You may be right, in which case +names will fall on barren ground. I had received the impression that the the first item on your list loomed quite a bit larger in the requirements space, if only because there are plausible workarounds for the other things. But that impression could be wrong. If nothing else, the +names proposal will help clarify the real requirements. This is parallel to the situation in software development where, rather than ask users what their requirements are - you rarely get a useful answer - you build something and say "would this do it?" and often you get instant useful feedback. -Tim
|
