Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I think someone else suggested using '%'. I believe this was Jimmy Cerra on Danny Ayers blog comments... just a guess though: http://dannyayers.com/archives/2004/11/05/exorcising-qnames/ > imo I would be ok with '%' and not actally changing things at the parser > level (processing of them would still be left to layers above the > parser). I will draw an analogy, eg, with c's printf syntax. printf's > syntax isn't part of the core language, but at the same time makes > things more flexible. people, however, realize in many cases to be > careful with '%', as probably those dealing with a modified syntax would. > probably %% could be used as an escaped form of %. This feels like a very dangerous idea-- of course this is probably just because I just got done implementing changes in AElfred for everything entities. if anything in XML is going to be escaped there are existing mechanisms to do this: % &percent; &perc; etc... Secondly, there are probably hundreds of thousands of documents (probably more) that utilize % in content already because it was specifically allowed and carried no importance in content. The hours upon hours to make such a backward incompatible change would render it unusable. I think that this problem can only be solved in one of two ways... (a) eliminating namespaces altogether or (b) add a new layer. Though many of us would like to eliminate namespaces, many wouldn't-- and the backward compatibility issue will hurt us for a long time... adding a new layer is disagreeable as well, but plausible. Something along the lines of the XML Schema key-keyref mechanism (which I tend to avoid) is a step in the right direction-- but there is probably a more elegant solution similar to xml:id. I am not sure what that is though... just a hunch. Cheers, Jeff Rafter
|
