• From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:42:23 +0100

> 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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: MicroXML and &
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@o...>
  • Re: MicroXML and &
    • From: David Lee <dlee@c...>

• References:
  • Re: MicroXML and &
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • Re: MicroXML and &
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • Re: MicroXML and &
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: MicroXML and &
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@o...>