[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: XInclude vs SAX vs validation
- From: David Orchard <email@example.com>
- To: 'David Brownell' <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:41:02 -0700
> XInclude could become "low level" by dropping the dependency
> on XPointer. The Infoset dependency is no problem (to me :),
> but the XPointer dependency changes things substantially; it's
> relying on a lot more than XML 1.0 plus infoset.
> - Dave
Gotcha. You mean "low level" in the sense that the burden of
implementation is lower. I was thinking you meant low level as in working
"lower" in the stack, ie not on infosets.
FWIW, there's been some debate about the utility of XInclude refering to
XPointer'd thingies. I personally think it's a reasonable compromise
between providing file modularity (what you are proposing) and a complete
entity replacement (what others have advocated).
We certainly have use cases that deal with modularity smaller than a file.
As an editor of various specs, I personally like the inclusion of xml
fragments from valid xml documents.
But I do understand your point about the amount of machinery being higher
to support these use cases. I would argue that if most xml parsers support
xpointer, then there's not too much overhead for xpointerized xinclude
versus nonxpointerized xinclude. Kind of like XML Base.