Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Jarle Stabell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:08:02 +0100
Simon St.Laurent wrote (about entities and XLink overlap):
> The overlap may not feel dangerous, but the very existence of an overlap
> does make people wonder - a lot. Having multiple ways to achieve similar
> goals using totally different syntax is usually not considered elegant.
> Elegance may not be a design goal for XML, but it certainly would help on
> the coherence issue.
Personally I'd love to see entities disappear (except the "magic"/necessary
ones), they make parsers harder to write (especially if one wants to make
user-friendly tools (on syntax errors, the problematic text should be
highlighted)). They also (AFAIK) ruin the "Desperate Perl Hacker" idea.
I don't know how many parsers out there are able to do the following (via
1. Load a document (with entities)
2. Operate on the document (via DOM).
3. Save it.
*AND* keep the original entity structure intact?
If one removed the entities and used DTD's with XML syntax, I think
authoring tools would be much easier to implement, and probably easier to
do the layering needed(?) for more conceptually advanced issues.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)