Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Original Message From: "Mike Sokolov" > On 6/1/2012 10:25 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:racter References instead.) >> Right. If we want minimal (micromal?) why have to ways of saying "<"? >> >> Liam >> > I think the major confusion around entities always arose from their > connection to DTDs. Having given up DTDs, MicroXML can then choose to > build in some predefined entity definitions, or not. It seems like a > small issue? But on the whole I think it would cause *more* confusion > rather than less to drop < and &. People are probably more familiar > with those than with the numeric references. Just a feeling. I agree that < & " and ' need to be kept from a usability point of view. Part of me would like to drop > after a customer complained that we didn't use it in place of > and the remote system they were talking to rejected it. But maybe that's more motivated by revenge and is a step too far! Pete Cordell Codalogic Ltd Interface XML to C++ the easy way using C++ XML data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes. Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com for more info
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
