Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Peter Hunsberger wrote: > On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:04:09 -0800, Robert Koberg <rob@k...> wrote: > >>Amelia A Lewis wrote: >> >>>On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 10:20:42PM +0200, Toni Uusitalo wrote: > > > <snip/> > >>>At present, there's no apparent activity targeted toward providing an >>>alternate entity-definition mechanism. >> >>Don't know if you followed the Ant(ish) thread but we use Ant and its >>filter capabilities to do what entities do. For example, on copying >>files(ets) like: >> >><p>blah blah @psuedoentity@ blah<p> >> >>is replaced with its property definition. >> >>Alternatively you could use XInclude. >> >>Entities blow and are unnecessary. > > > Sure, or just use XSLT and a bunch of other attached machinery. > > Somehow this strikes me like telling someone that they don't need a > trunk on their favorite sports car and if they really want to haul > groceries around they should go buy a 20 ton dump truck... I guess I see it different. To keep entities would be more like asking everyone to own a 20ton dump truck. I guess I don't understand your point... The thread is about xml moving forward. Enitites are an anchor. Are you saying entities should be left to draw to an indefinite length? > > (Not that I'm a fan of entities either.) > Then why are you arguing?
|
