Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
& <. ? Sent from my iPad (excuse the terseness) David A Lee dlee@c... On Jun 1, 2012, at 5:50 PM, "Michael Kay" <mike@s...> wrote: > >> I couldn't even support such an idea in principle. For me, one of the cornerstones of XML's value is in completely determining the lexical space. I think leaving entity interpretation to applications would kick a huge hole in that. >> > Actually, it strikes me as quite an intelligent layering. If xinclude processing can be done in a different layer from XML parsing, why not entity expansion? In fact, it's strongly arguable that it SHOULD be a separate process; one of the use cases for entity expansion is to give a level of indirection so that the same entity reference can be replaced by different text at different places/times, and that works much better if it isn't embedded in the parser. > > But that raises the question of why a "MicroXML" standard should need entities at all. It can all be done with elements, and I thought the aim was to reduce the number of concepts? > > Michael Kay > Saxonica > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS > to support XML implementation and development. To minimize > spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. > > [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ > Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l... > subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l... > List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
