• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:03:31 +0000

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:05:05 +0000
Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...> wrote:

> On 7 December 2010 14:42, David Lee <dlee@c...> wrote:
> > I'd even argue for a minimum *without attributes* and without mixed
> > content, no DTD subset, no namespaces, and only UTF8 support.
> 
> I've had to deal with "element only" xml and it's not that pleasant...
...

> 
> I agree with no DTDs, no namespaces, UTF-8 only etc... mixed content
> has to stay otherwise you may as well not call it xml.


I'd surmise this is for document Andrew?
What about machine produced XML?

Anyone else favour a no mixed content?
or is that a sub-sub set for the speed freaks?


-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• References:
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: <vojtech.toman@e...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@g...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Cecil New <cecil.new@g...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: <vojtech.toman@e...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>