Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Len Bullard <email@example.com>
- To: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:27:36 -0600
G. Ken Holman wrote:
> I, for one, hope external parsed entities *do not* go away.
> While some people may use them incorrectly, why take them away when they
> can be used correctly?
> I need them when I need to handle *one* XML file in *many* small manageable
> pieces ... I don't need them for re-use or for sharing, but they provide a
> useful convenience.
Cost questions: does the feature
1. Add cost to implementation?
2. Add complexity to information handling
Are there alternatives that get the same result?
How do these alternatives affect the costs?
As you are a real pro who has worked with most
of the major SGML and XML systems, is the
convenience worth the overhead?
I've used them but not as much since I began
to generate the markup server side. Yes,
they are good for managing small chunks of big
documents and easy to assemble with tools if one
is careful in building the entities, and knows how one is
going to use them with other chunks. Most of
the time now, given the state of cheap tools,
I use the relational DB for that. General
entities *feel* like batch SGML. I'm not
convinced they should go away because we
have them, the cat is in the bag. Why make
the cat mad? On the other hand, others
can hold that bag because they don't add
much to a server side repetoire, AFAICT.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)