• To: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:17:45 -0600
• Cc: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=IqfQn52a3rukNH8B5dQhjbdd897Dq7DhqPQR28WhevOx2JHSzjFvYsPsPMkwFScWmVAgLCeQvOQxHb1QQfaztkW7q7Ge/Wh7cevv6TIpPM4POnaDLcnJkHTnY4EudThcH/G2m697IzzFpTZtFG0MJ49fD0aoRvKLUvemMEttD+M=
• In-reply-to: <4203E349.9070803@k...>
• References: <6.0.0.22.0.20050204222038.02251d70@p...> <20050204204803.GA31024@t...> <4203E349.9070803@k...>
• Reply-to: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>

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...

(Not that I'm a fan of entities either.)

-- 
Peter Hunsberger

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>

• References:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread