Re: XInclude vs SAX vs validation

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

David Brownell wrote:

> As I'm saying the purpose of XInclude should be.  It's certainly
> suggested by the name's analogy to #include.

All the world's not C.  There have been for many years more
selective kinds of includes in programming languages.  Consider
Python's "from F import A, B, C ..."

> It's a pretty huge leap to say that, for example, C/C++ doesn't have syntax
> or modularity below the file level.

Right.  What it doesn't have is source-code addressibility below
the file level.  (Grove weenies, this is your opportunity to
define a property set for C/C++ programs.)

-- 
Not to perambulate             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
    the corridors               || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose     || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel