[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

  • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@o...>
  • To: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:00:32 -0600

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:52 PM, David Carlisle <davidc@n...> wrote:
On 01/06/2012 21:12, Pete Cordell wrote:
One possible solution is to pass through unknown entity refs
unchanged... no need to actually resolve it at parse time.


I really like this idea.  Then the entities can be application specific,
although obviously the use of a common set is encouraged.

I thought the imposed constraint of xml compatibility meant this wasn't an option?

as John wrote earlier in the thread (about a different aspect)

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.


--
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Weblog: http://copia.ogbuji.net
Poetry ed @TNB: http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
Linked-in: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/uche
Twitter: http://twitter.com/uogbuji
http://www.google.com/profiles/uche.ogbuji


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member