Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Kragen Sitaker)
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:15:51 -0500 (EST)
> Kragen wrote:
> > 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 ?
Well, I think it's important to be able to include (a) < and & and (b)
characters outside my charset.
> > 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() ;-)
Interesting idea. But it would be just as hard to process as the
current ]]> kludge; what is the benefit?
> However, this suggestion kills compatibility with XML.
But not SGML :) :)
> 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.
. . .but XML is a subset of SGML.
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)
- Re: SML
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <firstname.lastname@example.org>