• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Alternative "character entity" proposal
• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:31:22 +0100 (BST)
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <200310211819.TAA27643@e3000>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

>But surely before we can consider syntaxes for defining entities you
>need to get XML Core Group to reconsider making an non-dtd defined
>entity ref a validity rather than WF error. If é is a fatal
>error, no proposed definition mechanism will work..

That's why the XML version number would have to be changed, say to 2.0.

Making undefined entities a validity error in order to allow
experimentation would reduce interoperability.  I don't really see any
advantage to it over just doing those experiments with non-conforming
processors.  You don't need the XML Core Group's permission to do that :-)

-- Richard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Alternative "character entity" proposal
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Alternative "character entity" proposal
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: UTF-8+names
• Next by Date: Re: An Exploration of Non-linear Dynamic Systems (NLDS)andXML
• Previous by thread: RE: Yet Alternative "character entity" proposal
• Next by thread: Re: Alternative "character entity" proposal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread