Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Norman Walsh wrote: > 3. Something that works for a well-defined set of strings that can > be defined by some mechanism external to an individual document > but also inside a particular document. Something that has all > the features of general parsed entities. One radical idea would be to define parseable entities in XML, in a separate entity namespace, using a simple first-definition-wins rule and XInclude for the external ones. I wonder why nobody's proposed that? Oh, wait, a number of people have proposed that. They just get slapped around here until they go away. ;-} Bob Foster > As I said, I don't think an XML 2.0 is worth pursuing if we select 0 > From this list. > > I am concerned that 3 is going to be quite complex and highly > controversial because just as there are large communities that *need* > entities, there are large communities that have no need for them > whatsoever. > > The really hard, open question to my mind is, where's the 80/20 cut? > Between 1 and 2 or between 2 and 3? (Possibly it's after 3, but my > intuition says that it may not be.) > > Be seeing you, > norm >
|
