Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:50:18 -0800
> I think it would be very nice, from a processing point of view, to have
> an XML variant that didn't have CDATA sections or DTDs (although entity
> definitions are useful!).
1. Why entities should live in the core, if one can use
any macroprocessor to get *more* flexible functionality?
2. How often do we need entities outside the DTD's ?
> I suspect CDATA sections are hard to live
> without if you're writing XML documents about HTML or XML, though.
Let us have <CDATA> element ? I think up to 3-5 elements with
'hardcoded' semantics will not cause a big problem.
I think it is not a big problem in traditional languages
to use reserved keywords to avoid function names like
for() or if() ;-)
However, this suggestion kills compatibility with XML.
It's why I think that SML vs XML is very similiar to
XML vs SGML.
At some point it would be easier to break the
compatibility than to support legacy. As far as I
understand, exactly that thing happened with
XML vs SGML.
However, because usualy that CDATA is all
about turning < > into < and > it may be OK
to live without CDATA at all - we *already* have
similiar problems with XML ;-)
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)