Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Len Bullard <email@example.com>
- To: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 21:47:14 -0600
G. Ken Holman wrote:
> Yes, I can understand those who don't want to give users enough rope to
> hang themselves, but I don't think we can legislate all barriers to
We can try. If we get rid of the rope makers, we can get rid
of the hangings. Seems to be the way the tobacco legislation
is going on this side of the falls.
> Certainly it behooves us who work with this technology to preach
> that external parsed entities are unacceptable for fragment reuse (thank
> you, Eliot, for doing so publicly), but if people won't listen, is that the
> design's fault? Does the feature *have* to disappear?
Of course not. It just has to be defended from time to time by a
reasonable user with a reasonable and well-stated requirement.
I take Eliot and Tim very seriously, and if they
want it out, I want to know why. I understand the reference
bear. To me, the general entities are not as useful as they once were,
but for those that know how, understand their limits, and
apply them accordingly, they are safe. I can remember when
PIs were despised too, and darn, they got a new career after
the revolution. Soo..
Now that unique ID thing and namespaces? Something about hats?
Does everyone feel comfortable about the problems with ID/IDREFs
and aggregate documents? Our only solution for X3D is to keep
the Protos and Inlines in tightly sealed bags. Is it the
case that if we use IDs and IDREFs, we don't have any way
of ensuring their unique relationships if X3D is used with
an XHTML host?
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)